TC United States
3 Environmental Protection
/ Agency
Office of Water
Criteria and Standards
Washington, D.C. 20460
Final
March 1983
Environmental
Impact Statement
(EIS) for the
Portland, Maine
Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation
**. -
-------
METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
Approximate Conversions to Metric Muasnre
Symbol
in
II
(d
Im
mi
nmi
'1 nautical
m2
II2
.d2
mi2
nmi2
01
Ib
' 1 tonne -
II 01
Pi
ql
gal
1,3
(d3
When You Know
Inches
leel
(aids
lalhoms
slalule miles
nautical miles'
mile - 6.076 leel ' MS
squaie inches
squaie leel
squaic (aids
squaie miles
squaie nautical miles
ounces
pounds
shoil tons 12.000 Ibsl
1.000 kg * 1 melnc Ion
lluid ounces
pints
quails
gallons
cubic leel
cubic (aids
Multiply by
LENGTH
254
30.
0.9
I.B
1 6
19
statute miles
AREA
-* ~ ~"-
65
009
o.e
26
34
MASS (weight)
28
045
0.9
VOLUME
__^_-__
30
047
09S
36
003
076
To find
cenlimeleis
cenlimeleis
meleis
meleis
kilomeleis
kilomeleis
squaie cenlimeleis
squaie meleis
squaie meleis
squaie kilomeleis
squaie kilomeleis
giams
kilograms
tonnes'
millilileis
lileis
lileis
lileis
cubic meleis
cubic meleis
Symbol
cm
cm
in
ni
km
km
cm2
n,2
m2
kn,2
km2
g
kg
i
ml
1
1
1
ID3
m3
TEMPERATURE (exact)
"i
m/s
ll/s.
ll/inln
mph
kn
kn
"1 knot •
fahienheil lempeialuie
inches pei second
led pei second
leti pei minute
miles pei houi
knots"
knots InauliCdl miles pei
1 IS mph
0551-H 32
VELOCITY
25
30
OS
1 6
SI.
hui 1 19
Celsius lempeialuie
cenlimeleis uei second
cenlimeleis pei second
cenlimeleis per second
kilomeleis pel houi
cenlimeleis pei second
kilomeleis pei huui
•c
cm/s
cm/s
cm/s
kph
cm/s
kph
Symbol
mm
cm
m
01
m
km
km
Approximate
When Vou Know
millimeters
cenlimeleis
meleis
meleis
meleis.
kilomeleis
kilomeleis
Conversions from Metric Measure
Multiply by
LENGTH
004
04
3.3
I.I
06
06
OS
To find
inches
inches
leel
(aids
lalhoms
slalule miles
nautical miles •
Symbol
ID
In
II
«d
Im
Oil
noil
'I nautical mile - 6.076 leel - 115 slalule miles
cm2
m2
m2
km2
km2
g
kg
i
'l tonne •
ml
1
1
1
in3
m3
•c
cm/s
cm/s
cm/s
cra/s
kph
kph
"1 kn«l -
squaie ccntimctcis
squaie meteis
square meters
squaie kilomeleis
squaie kilomeleis
iiatnl
kllogiams
tonnes'
1.000 kj - 1 melnc Ion
mlllllltcis
lileis
lileis
lileis
cubic raeleis
cubic meleis
T
1
Celsius lempeialuie
centlmeleis pel second
centimeter! per second
centimeters per second
centimeters per second
kilometers per boui
kilomeleis per hour
1.15 mph
AREA
— —
0.16
II.
12
04
03
MASS (weight)
04
2.2
I.I
VOLUME
11
0.03
2.1
I.I
03
35
1.3
CUDCDATIIDC IAU
EMrtHAIUHE lex
l.bTCI 02
UCI APlTW
VELOCITY
0.4
0.03
20
002
06
O.S
squaie inches
squaie led
squaie (aids
squaie miles
squaie nautical miles
ounces
pounds
short tons 12.000 Ibl
lluld ounces
pints
quails
gallons
cubic leel
cubic (aids
- *\
act)
Fahienheil lempeialuie
Inches pei second
leel per second
leel per minute
knots (nautical miles per hrl"
miles per hour
knots
in2
II2
(d2
mi2
nmi2
01
Ib
II 01
PI
ql
Oal
II3
Id3
•f
la/s
ll/s
It/mm
kn
mpta
kn
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
FOR
PORTLAND, MAINE
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
SITE DESIGNATION
Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
PORTLAND, MAINE OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
( ) Draft
(x) Final
( ) Supplement to Draft
Environmental Protection Agency
i. Type of Action
(X) Administrative/Regulatory Action
( ) Legislative Action
2. Brief description of background of proposed action and its purpose.
The purpose of the action is to provide an environmentally acceptable
;ocan site for the disposal of materials dredgeJ from the Portland
H-ir'?or, Maine and vicinity, in compliance with EPA Ocean Dumping
.le.uulat.lons.
3. Summary of the major beneficial and/or adverse effects associated with
the proposed action.
The major benefit of the proposed action is the provision for an
environmentally acceptable location for the disposal of dredged
materials. Adverse effects associated with the proposed action include
the following effects on the environment: (1) mounding of dredged
material at the site, and (2) smothering of some benthic organisms due to
burial under dredged material•
-------
4. Alternatives considered, including the proposed action.
The alternatives considered in this SIS are: (1) no action, which '^ould not
be designacing a Foreland Harbor, Maine site for concinued used, and (2) use
of an ocean disposal sice for dredged materials (e.g., che Existing Sire or
an Alternative Site located near the Wilkinson Basin).
5. Comments have been requested from the following:
Federal Agencies and Offices
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Commerce
Maritime Administration
>i'a;ior.al Marine Fisheries Service
N'aticnii Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Defar.se
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Navy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of the Interior
3ureau of Land Management
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Department of Transportation
Coasc Guard
National Science Foundation
State Agencies and Offices
State of Maine Planning Office
State of Maine Department of Conservation
State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection
State of Maine Department of Marine Resources
vi
-------
Private Organization
American Littoral Society
Center for Law and Social Policy
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
League of Women Voters
National Academy of Sciences
National Wildlife Federation
Resources for the Future
Sierra Club
Water Pollution Control Federation
Ac.ademic/Research Institutions
Ira C. Darling Center
Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
6. The Final statement was officially filed with the Director, Office of
Environmental Review, EPA.
7. Comments on the Final EIS are due within 30 days from the date of EPA's
publication of Notice of Availability in the Federal Register which is
expected to be -
Comments should be addressed to:
Frank G. Csulak
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
vn
-------
Copies of Che Final EIS nay be obtained from:
Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/245-3036
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
617/223-5061
The Final statement may be reviewed at che following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Reference Unit, Room 2404 (Rear)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2303
Boston, MA 02203
617/223-5061
viii
-------
SUMMARY
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provides information required for
the decisionmaking process, with respect to final designation of a Portland,
Maine, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). the purpose of the
proposed action is to provide the most feasible and environmentally acceptable
ocean location for the disposal of material primarily dredged from Portland,
Maine Harbor Channel System.
A disposal site in the ocean is needed to receive material dredged from the
Portland Harbor area. Without dredging, operating depths in the Harbor wouJd
decrease, thus limiting economically important ship traffic to Portland, Maine.
In evaluating alternative methods for the disposal of dredged material, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (CE) has demonstrated that disposal in the ocean is the
most reasonable method at present.
Portland Harbor (Fore River) originates at the headwaters of Strouciwater
River. The Stroudward River flows in an easterly direction through Garham and
South Portland for approximately L6 miles before emptying into the upstream
reaches of the Fore River. The Fore River continues in an easterly direction
for approximately five additional miles before emptying, into Casco Bay at the
entrance to Portland Harbor. The basin drains an area of 54 square miles.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the agency responsible for
designating ocean disposal sites, approved the Existing Portland ODMDS (Figure
S-l) for interim use in 1979, based on historical use of the disposal site (the
Existing Site was used in about 1946 for material dredged from the Portland
Harbor Channel System). The use of any site under interim designation will
continue only if EPA grants the site final designation. EPA must either
terminate the interim site or designate it for continued use by July 1984, when
Portland Harbor ODMDS interim designation expires.
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
Portland Harbor, Maine, is approximately 100 nmi northeast of Boston,
Massachusetts, at the south end of Casco Bay, Maine. It is the leading port in
northern New England, handling over 13.5 million tons in 1979. Periodic
maintenance dredging of a navigable shipping channel and turning basin is
necessary for the continued viability of industry, commercial fisheries, and
sportfishing in the Gulf of Maine, and for the import of products into New
England.
ix
-------
NORMANOEAU
SITE (1977}
- 42'30'N
70'30'
70-00-
W30*
Figure S-l. Locations of the Existing and Alternative Sites.
-------
After the most recent disposal of dredged material from Portland Harbor at
a different site in 1972, and with recognition that a large amount of material
would need to be dredged in the near future, the CE and others initiated
studies for locating a suitable disposal site. The CE determined that
land-based disposal techniques, such as landfill and constructing marshes, are
not feasible in the Portland area. Since 1974 several potential ocean
disposal sites, in water depths ranging from 35 to 65m, and within several
miles of the Portland lighted horn buoy (approximately 1L nmi from the Harbor
entrance), have been investigated.
In 1977, EPA designated a Portland ODMDS, i nmi in diameter, centered at
43°32'lo"N, 70°06'06"W, as an interim (tentative) location for disposal
purposes, in compliance with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) 40 CFR ^,228. 12. This site had been studied by Normandeau
Associates Inc. in 1974. When the Draft EIS for the Portland Harbor
Maintenance Dredging Project was released in 1977, the CE expected to use
point dumping disposal in the ocean at 43°3I'40"N, 70°U6'06"W (within the
interim site designated by EPA in the 1977 Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria, 40 CFR ^228. 12; Figure' S-rl). When the proposal for this site was
presented to local fishermen, it was rejected because of its proximity to a
prime fishing area.
In March 1979 the CE published a draft Supplement to the Draft EIS for the
Maintenance Dredging of Portland Harbor, providing the rationale for the change
in site location to the Existing Site, as opposed to the site originally
presented in the Draft EIS. The Final EIS for Maintenance Dredging of Portland
Harbor, Portland, Maine, published by the CE in June 1979, concluded that
disposal of dredged material from the habor at the Existing Site is the most
environmentally and economically feasible disposal alternative. The center
coordinates of Existing Site are 43°34'18"N; and 70°06'06"W.
The purpose of this EIS is to provide the required information to aid in
the decisionmaking process, resulting in the proposed final designation of a
Portland ODMDS for continued use as an ocean site for the disposal of dredged
material.
xi
-------
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES
Dredging is necessary for safe navigation in Portland rlarbor. The no-accion
alternative is 'not considered an acceptable alternative because EPA is
required to decide the fate of the interim site, the location of which was
cnanged to the Existing Site (i.e., final designation or termination of
dumping.). Because land disposal alternatives have been determined by the CZ
to be environmentally unacceptable in the Portland area, an ocean sita is
necessary.
EPA and the CE have evaluated the need for dumping in the ocean and
alternatives to dumping in the ocean in accordance with Ocean Dumping
Regulations (40 CFR Part 227 Subparc 0). Criteria used for site selection are
based on considerations of pocentiai interferences by -disposal operations with
other marine activities and resources, potential perturbations of water
quality, impacts on beaches or other amenity areas, previous uses of ciie
ereagcd material disposal site, and geographic location.
After screening various alternative sices, the Existing Site and an
Alternative Site near the Wilkinson Basin are considered in this EIS for
designation. The Existing Site was used in about 19^6 as a primary disposal
site for sediments dredged from channels of Portland Harbor. Detectable
impacts of dredged material disposal in this site have been limited to
mounding, smothering of some benthic organisms, and temporary disturbances of
demersal fish assemblages.
The CE used two sites close to shore in 1962 and 1970 (Sites A and B, Figure
S-l) for dredged material disposal. However, additional use of these sites is
not recommended because the sices are within lobster fishing grounds, an
important commerical fishery resource. Furthermore, there is no demonstrated
need for additional sices based on present and expected dredged material
volumes. Designation of another site in lieu of the Existing Site, in similar
water depths, is not recommended because there would be no significant change or
benefics Co Che ecosystem.
xii
-------
The Alternative Site is in the Gulf of Maine and is not seaward of the true
East Coast Continental Shelf; however, it does fulfill some of the same
environmental conditions of deeowater (i.e., low-energy and low biomass).
Wilkinson Basin has not been used previously for dredged material disposal, and
the potential adverse effects of dredged sediment on indigenous organisms and
resources are presently unknown.
Other sites on the Continental Slope, beyond the Gulf of Maine, would
present four problems: (I) the greater distance (240 nmi) from shore
increases the potential for navigational errors, (2) longer transit time would
increase the potential for short dumping due to emergency during adverse
weather conditions, (3) great water depth ( >2GOm) would result in the
deposition of dredged materials over a larger area than projected for the
Existing Site, and (4) cost to transport the dredged material would be
excessive.
PROPOSED ACTION
After reviewing all reasonable alternatives che EPA and CE proposed that
the Existing Site be designated for disposal of dredged materials from the
Portland Harbor Channel and vicinity.
Since 1972 ocean dumping of dredged material has been regulated by the EPA.
Section Iu2(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
authorizes the EPA to regulate, by permit, the dumping of materials into ocean
waters. Consequently, EPA promulgated the Final Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria in 1977 (40 CFR Part 228). These regulations approved the Portland
interim ODMDS and several other existing ODMDS in New England for dumping on
an interim basis "pending completion of baseline or trend assessment surveys
and designation for continuing use or termination of use" (40 CFR $228.12).
Formal designation is accomplished by amending 40 CFR 228.12(b) of the EPA
xiii
-------
Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria, which identify dredged material
disposal sites for use under the provisions of the Ocean Dumping Regulations.
(Federal legislation regulating ocean dumping is described in Chapter 1.; The
decision to accept a site for final designation is based on compliance with
site selection criteria (40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6a), which ensures that disposal
of dredged material will not degrade or endanger the marine environment, and
will not cause unacceptable adverse human health effects or other permanent
adverse effects. The criteria are applied to the potential effects caused by
dredged material disposal at the Existing Site and the Alternative Site in
Chapter 2.
CONTINUED USE OF THE EXISTING SITE
The locations of the Existing Sic-;, c.i.: .\_L '=. Lnaci-. .^ oi';^. a'. ".;5 .-. ..••.: •,
ii'.iei and Cry study area, and "he Mormandeau study area (also known as r.:ia i'J~/
EPA interim site) are shown in Figure S-l. The Existing Sice iias an acza o: 1
nmi^ is 6.72 nmi offshore, in water depths ranging from 40 to 65m and whose
center coordinate is 43°34'18"N; and 70°06'06"W. The Alternative Site is 21.5
nmi offshore, over the axis of a trough and seaward of the 170m isobath.
Records of dumping before 1962 are incomplete. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Survey (NOS) reported that
the 5 nmi disposal area noted on navigation charts was established by the
Boston Office of the War Department in 1943 for the disposal of dredged
material from Portland Harbor. The CE reported that in 1945 and 1946 major
dredging projects were authorized. From those notes it is surmised that the
material dredged during 1943 through 1946 was disposed at the site designated
in 1943, which now incorporates the Existing Site. However, since 1946
dredged material, with the exception of the present project, has been dumped
at nearshore Sites A and B. Site A received 225,000 yd in 1962, and Site 3
-\
received 21,000 yd° in 1970. The Alternative Site has never been used for the
disposal of dredged material.
xiv
-------
The criteria used in Chapter 2 to evaluate the Existing Site are summarized
in Table S-i. The Existing Site is the recommended location for the disposal
of dredged material. All other nearshore sites were rejected because of their
proximity to prime fishery areas. The site has been used in the past and no
adverse effects resulting from disposal are known or are reported. Mounding,
changes in sediment texture and chemistry, and smothering of benthic organisms
are restricted within the site boundaries, and most likely within the small
basin at its center. Designation of the Alternative Site is not recommended
because dumping would have unknown and possibly deleterious effects on
organisms, and the longer distance and transit time would create an added
economic and energy consumption burden. The longer transit time increases the
probability of short dumping and involves difficulties of site monitoring and
surveillance. Finally, no baseline data currently exist for the Alternative
Site; consequently, predisposal data would be needed so that subsequent
ciianges could be assessed.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Distributions of biological communities along the coast of Maine appear to
be related to depth and stability of seafloor sediments. For example, the
biomass and density of benthic organisms decreases with increasing distance
from shore, and is associated with an increase in silt content. Relative to
other nearshore areas along the Maine coast, the Existing Site does not
sustain a large and diverse benthic fauna.
Little information is available on benthic and nektonic communities
inhabiting the Alternative Site. Investigations of the biota from adjacent
Shelf areas have demonstrated low abundances of several commercially important
finfish and shellfish species.
xv
-------
TABLE S-L
SUMMARY OF THE 11 SITE-SELECTION CRITERIA
AS APPLIED TO THE EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE SITES
iO era §228.6 Cricarla
Existing Site
Alternative Sice
I. Geographical position, depch
of wacer, bottom topography, and
distance froo coasc
2. Location in relation co breeding,
spawning, nursery, feeding, or
passage areas of Living resources
in adult or juvenile phases
3. Location In relation to beaches
and other amenity areas
*. Types and ^uar.cicies of vasces
proposed co be disposed of, and
proposed methods of release,
including mechocs of packing
:he waste, if any
'}. feasibility at"
aonicon::?
surve ii lance and
*6. Dispersal, horizontal transport,
and vertical mixing characteristics
of the area, including prevailing
current direction and velocity,
if any
*7. Existence and effects of current
and previous discharges and 'dumping
in the area (including cumulative
effects)
3. Interference with shipping,
fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish
and shellfish culture, areas of
special scientific importance, and
other legitimate uses of trie ocean
•9. The existing water quality and
ecology as determined by available
data trend assessment, or
baseline surveys
10. Potentiality for the development
or recruitment of nuisance species
in the disposal site
11. Existence at or In close
proximity to the sice of any
significant natural or cultural
features of historical inportance
See "igure S-l; 6.3 ami offshore:
39m to i^m deep; rough, irregular
rocky outcrops around a 600m by 600n
basin
Some occurrence of lobster aigra-
tion on a seasonal basis through
the general region
6.3 nmi from shore; because of che
water depth and current directions,
dredged material is not likely co
reach adjacent beaches
850,000 yd of conesive material
(sand, silt, and clay) from t.-.e
channels ana turning basin (.Last
project); no future projects
identified; no packing, bottom dump
release r'rom barge
c; provides an observer on each tug;
monitoring is not a problem
Rapid settling, minimal horizontal
or vertical stratification; major
portion of material will remain
within the site
Effects are minor and restricted ;o
the site; significant adverse
effects have not been noted outside
the site
Mo incerference Is expected
See Figure S-L; 21 nmi offshore;
130m deep, fiat mud-covered
bottom
So known breeding or spawning
grounds in cne region
2L nmi from shore; because
of the water depth and distance
from shore, dredged
' material Is not likely to
reach adjacent beaches
Same as Existing Site
High water quality with sightly
elevaced hydrocarbon concentrations;
Infaunal community has high vari-
ability, and epifauna dominated by
suspension feeders attached to rocky
surfaces
The dredged matarial does not contain
material known co cause development or
recruitment of nuisance species
No known features exist at or near
Che site
CE could provide in observer
monitoring is more diir'icui:
due co greater distance off-
shore and greater depth
Due to greater depth, more
mixing and dispersal is
expected
Mo sediments have been dumped
in this area
Same as Existing Site
No data, but presumed to be
same as Existing Site
Same as Existing Site
Same as Existing Sice
* Criterion especially relevant co sice selection
XVi
-------
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
SUMMARY ix
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ix
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES xii
PROPOSED ACTION xiii
CONTINUED USE OF THE EXISTING SITE xiv
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT xv
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES xvii
ORGANIZATION OF THE EIS xvii.i
1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
PURPOSE AND NEED 1-4
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 1-4
Corps of Engineers National Purpose and Need 1-4
Corps of Engineers Local Need 1-5
EPA Purpose and Need 1-6
INTERIM DUMPING SITES 1-6
Site Studies 1-7
Site Designation 1-8
LEGISLATION AND REGULATION BACKGROUND 1-9
Federal Legislation 1-9
Federal Control Programs 1-12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CRITERIA 1-15
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 1-18
2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED
NO-ACTION ALTERNATE 2-3
LAND-BASED DISPOSAL • 2-4
DISPOSAL IN THE OCEAN 2-5
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES 2-5
DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITES 2-9
Geographical Position, Depth of Water,
Bottom Topography, and Distance from Coast 2-10
xix
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning
Nursery, Feeding, or Passage Areas of
Living Resources in Adult and Juvenile Phases 2-iO
Location in Relation to beaches and Other Amenity Areas. . . . 2-12
Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed to be
Disposed of, and Proposed Methods of Release
Including Methods of Packing the Waste, If Any 2-12
Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring 2-13
Dispersal, Horizontal Transport, and Vertical
Mixing Characteristics of the Area, Including
Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity, If Any 2-14
Existence and Effects of Current and Previous
Discharges and Dumping in the Area (Including
Cumulative Effects) 2-13
Interference with Shipping, Fishing, Recreation,
Mineral Extraction, Desalination, Fish and Shellfish
Culture, Areas of Special Scientific Importance, ana
Other Legitimate Uses oc the Ocean 2-16
Tie Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Site
as Determined by Available Dat-i or 3y Irene
Assessment on Baseline Surveys
Potentiality for the Developnent or Recruitment
of Nuisance Species in the Disposal Site
Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site
of Any Significant Natural or Cultural Features
of Historical Importance 2-13
CONCLUSIONS 2-18
RECOMMENDED USE OF THE SITE 2-21
Permissible Material Loadings 2-21
Disposal Methods 2-22
Disposal Schedule 2-22
Monitoring the Disposal Site 2-22
Guidelines for the Monitoring Plan 2-23
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS 3-1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS 3-1
Meteorology 3-2
Physical Characteristics 3-4
. Geological Characteristics 3-9
Chemical Characteristics 3-13
Biological Characteristics 3-19
xx
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
PRESENT AND POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE VICINITY
OF THE EXISTING SITE 3-29
Fisheries 3-29
General Marine Recreation 3-34
Shipping 3-34
Military Activities 3-35
Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 3-35
Marine Sanctuaries 3-35
Active Ocean Disposal Sites (Other
than the Existing Site) 3-36
PRESENT AND FUTURE STUDIES 3-36
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 4-2
Shoaling 4-3
4-4
Interference with Navigation ,
Introduction of Potentially Harmful
Toxins and/or Organisms 4-4
EFFECTS ON THE ECOYSYSTEM 4-6
Water and Sediment Quality 4-7
Biota 4-10
Emergency Dumping 4-13
EFFECTS ON RECREATION, ECONOMICS AND AESTHETICS 4-19
Fisheries 4-19
Aesthetics 4-21
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND
MITIGATING MEASURES 4-22
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 4-23
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 4-23
5 COORDINATION 5-1
PREPARERS OF THE EIS 5-1
REVIEWERS OF THE EIS 5-3
6 GLOSSARY, ABBREVIATIONS, REFERENCES 6-1
GLOSSARY 6-1
ABBREVIATIONS 6-13
REFERENCES 6-15
xxi
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX A SURVEY METHODS, RESULTS, AND INTERPRETATION' A-l
APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHIC CHARACTERIZATION 3-1
APPENDIX C LAND DISPOSAL COMMENTS AND RESPONSES C-l
APPENDIX D REPORT OF BIOASSAY AND BIOACCUMULATION TESTING D-l
APPENDIX E . COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT EIS E-l
TABLES
Number
S-l Summary of the 11 Sice-Selection Cricsria
as Applied Co the Exiscing and Alternative Sices :-:vi
1-1 Responsibilicies of Federal Departments and Agencies
for Regulating Ocean Disposal Under MPRSA • . . . 1-13
2-1 Alternative Site Summary 1-2
2-2 Summary of the 11 Site-Selection Criteria as
Applied tot he Existing and Alternative Sices 2-20
3-1 Exiscing Current Data Collected Near the Existing Site 3-7
3-2 Representative Erosion and Transport Velocity
Thresholds for Quartz Sediments 3-12
3-3 Dissolved and Particulate Trace Mecals 3-16
3-4 Trace Metal Accumulation in Mussel Tissue from Bulwark
Shoals Control Area and the Existing Site 3-13
3-5 Fish Species Occurring in the Northern Coastal
Area of the North Atlantic 3-22
3-6 Dominant Polychaete Species Present at the Existing Site
in June 1979 and April 1980 3-25
3-7 Cetaceans Commonly Observed in the Gulf of Maine 3-27
3-8 Marine Landings into Porcland Harbor for 1974 and 1975 3-32
3-9 Life History of Nearshore Commercial Finfish
in the Gulf of Maine 3-33
5-1 List of Preparers 5-1
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figures
S-l Locations of the Existing and Alternative Sites x
1-1 Portland ODMDS 1-3
1-2 Dredged Material Evaluation Cycle 1-14
3-1 Surface Currents Within Slope Water and Coastal Water Masses. . . 3-5
3-2 Monthly Cycle of Surface Water Temperatures Near
Portland Lightship. 3-8
3-3 Temperature Differential (°C) Between Surface and Bottom
Waters Near Portland Lightship 3-8
xxii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Figure Page
3-4 Bathymetry of the Existing Site 3-LL
3-5 Bottom Sediments on the Continental Margin 3-12
3-6 Maine Coast Characterization by Region 3-24
3-7 Fisheries in the Vicinity of the Existing Site 3-31
xxiii
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
No irreversible or significant adverse environmental impacts have been
observed at the Existing Site. Potential environmental consequences of
dredged material disposal at the Existing Site are summarized below.
Commercial lobster fishing commonly occurs inshore and seaward of the site,
but is almost nonexistent within the site- Previous dumping has produced no
detectable effects on commercial finfish species. Sport and commercial troll
fisheries are not active in the vicinity of the Existing Site. No fishing
currently exists at or near the Alternative Site; therefore, no potential
interference by disposal of dredged material is expected. Thus, little
interference with fishing is expected from disposal operations at either
alternative.
The dredged material is predominantly fine sand, silt, and clay, and
creates some temporary turbidity. However, previous dumping of dredged
materials at the Existing Site has not caused any significant adverse
aesthetic effects, and such effects would not be expected if the dredged
materials were dumped at the Alternative Site.
Changes in water chemistry occur immediately following disposal activities,
but conditions return to predisposal levels within a short time. Dredged
material disposal has caused no detectable changes in water quality at the
Existing Site.
Previous dumping of dredged material at the Existing Site has caused no
obvious long-term adverse affects on benthic communities. Direct burial by
dredged material produces a: temporary change in the benthic community,
primarily by smothering some organisms.
Dredged materials have not been dumped at the Alternative Site; thus, the
full potential for significant adverse environmental impact is unknown. A
predisposal study is recommended to identify potential impacts, if the site is
to be used. No mitigating action is necessary for dredged material disposal
at the Existing Site.
xv ii
-------
ORGANIZATION OF THE EIS
The EIS is organized into six Chapters and three Appendixes, "our Chapters
comprise the main body of the EIS:
• Chapter I specifies the purpose and need for the Proposed Action,
(i.e., final designation of a Portland ODMDS). Background
information on the disposal of dredged material is presented,
together with the legal framework guiding the EPA in the selection
and designation of disposal sites. Responsibilities of the CE in
disposal of dredged material in the ocean are provided, and the
history of dredged material disposal at the Existing Site is
presented •
• Chapter 2 discusses alternative locations for the disposal of
dredged material in the ocean and the no-accion alternative- The
Existing and Alternative Sites are evaluated using the 11 site
selection criteria listed at ..40 CFR • §228.6. Guidelines for a
monitoring plan are also presented.
• Chapter 3 describes the affected environment of the Existing and
Alternative Sites.
• Chapter 4 describes the potential environmental consequences of
dredged material disposal at the Existing and Alternative Sites-
Chapters 5 and 6 and Appendixes A, B, and C provide supplementary
information. Chapter 5 lists the authors of the EIS. Chapter 6 contains the
glossary, list of abbreviations, and references cited in the text.
Mathematical conversion factors are provided on the inside front cover.
Appendix A provides Interstate Electronics Corporation (IEC) survey data and
supplemental oceanographic data; Appendix B describes the Existing Site, based
on data from a photographic survey; Appendix C provides land disposal comments
and responses; Appendix D provides COE Report on bioassay and bioaccumulation
testing; and Appendix E provides comments and responses on DEIS.
xviii
-------
Chapter 1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
Shipping is a major component of commerce in Portland,
Maine. As a result of natural shoaling, the Fore River
channel must be dredged periodically to maintain an
operating depth of 10.7m (35 ft). Ocean dumping is the
most feasible means to dispose of dredged material. The
action proposed in this EIS is the final designation of an
environmentally acceptable Portland Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site.
GENERAL
The Action proposed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is Che final
designation for continuing use of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sice
(ODMDS) in the Portland, Maine area. The purpose of the proposed action is to
provide Che most environmentally acceptable location for the disposal of
materials dredged from Portland, Maine. The EIS presents the information needed
to evaluate the suitability of ocean disposal areas for final designation for
continuing use, and is based on one of a series of disposal site environmental
studies. The environmental studies and final designation process are being
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) (86 Stat . 1052), as .amended (33
U.S.C.A. §1401 et seq.); the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Ocean
Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220-229); and other applicable Federal
environmental legislation.
Land-based alternatives for the disposal of dredged materials are
unavailable at reasonable environmental and economic costs; therefore,
alternatives in the ocean have .been investigated (see Chapter 2 and
Appendix C).
In 1977, EPA designated a Portland ODMDS at 43°32'18"N, 70°06'06"W, 1 nmi
in diameter, as an interim (tentative) ocean location for the disposal of
dredged material 40 CFR §228.12. When the Draft EIS for Portland Harbor
Project was issued, the CE expected to dump the material at a specific point
1-1
-------
ac a buoy located at 43°3l'401IN, 70°06'06'fW (within the interim site
designated by EPA). This site had been studied by Normandeau Associates, Inc.
(L974a,b) (Figure 1-1). On the basis of further studies, the CE contractor
suggested that the disposal site be moved about 0.5 nmi southeast of the
previous site. Coordination with concerned Federal and State agencies was
initiated to determine if the site was acceptable to all involved agencies.
However, in April 1977, when the CZ notified the public about the new disposal
site, the local fishing community objected because the new location was in one
of their fishing grounds . The fishermen were also opposed to relocating the
site to its designated interim location, and suggested a previously designated
area at 43°34'06"N, 70a02'00"W (Figure 1-1). This area, beyond the 3-nmi
limit of the Territorial Sea, was established by the Boston Office of the War
Department in 1943 for the disposal of materials dredged from Portland Harbor.
Major dredging projects were authorized for Portland Harbor (CE, 1979), and it
is surmised (in the absence of actual records) that the site was used for the
disposal of dredged material between 1943 and L9«6. Based on this indication
of prior use, studies of the area and ceconmendations from the fisheries
industry and the Maine State Department of Marine Resources, a site
^
(hereinafter, the Existing Site) has been defined as a 1 nmi- ar^a, centered
at 43°-32'l3"N, 70006'06"W, with corner coordinates of 43°33'36"N, 70'02'30"';;
43°33'36"N, 7n°Oi'06"W; 43°34'36"N, 70S02'30"W; 43'34'36"N?, 70'Oi'06"V (Fissure
1-1 >/ The site is 6.8 nmi offshore and has an average depth of 50m. In March
1979 the CZ published a draft Supplement to the Draft EIS for the "Maintenance
Dredging of Portland Harbor," which provides for the change in disposal site
location from the original EIS.
The Portland, i-iaine site would be designated for the disposal of dredged
material. The site may be used for the disposal of dredged material only
after evaluation of each Federal project or penaic application has
established that the disposal is within site capacity and in compliance wich
the criteria and requirements of EPA and CE regulations.
1-2
-------
^
ENLAftCEO
PORTLAND
NORMANDEAU
SITE (1977
EPA SITE)
EXISTING
SITE
HUE AND
CRY SITE
ALTERNATIVE
SITE
WILKINSON
BASIN
44-00'
- 43'30'
- 43-00'
- 42'30'N
70-30'
70-00'
Figure 1-1. Portland ODMDS
1-3
-------
PURPOSE AND NEED
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT
The MPRSA was enacted in October 1972. Congressional intent for tnis
legislation as expressed in the Act is:
Sec. 2(b). The Congress declares that it is the policy of the
United States to regulate the dumping of all types of materials
into ocean waters and to prevent or strictly limit the dumping
into ocean waters of any material which would adversely affect
human health, welfare, amenities, or the marine environment,
ecological systems, or economic potentialities.
(c). It is the purpose of this Act to regulate (1) the trans-
portation by any person of material from the United States and,
in the case of United States vessels, aircraft, or agencies,
the transportation of material from a location outside the
United States, when in either case the transportation is for
the purpose of dumoing the material into ocean waters and (2)
the dumping of material transported by any person from a loca-
tion outside the United States if the dumping occurs in the
territorial seas of the contiguous zone of the United States,
Title I of the MPRSA, which is the Act's primary resulatorv section,
authorizes the Administrator of EPA (Section 102) and the Secretary of the Armv
acting through the CE (Section 103) co establish ocean disposal Demit orogr.ims
for nondredged and dredged materials, resoectively. Title I also reouires EPA to
establish criteria, based on those factors listed in Section 102(a), for the
review and evaluation of permits under the EPA and CE permit program. In
addition, Section 102(c) of Title I authorizes EPA, considering criteria
established pursuant to Section 102(a), to designate recommended ocean disposal
sites or times for dumoing of nondredged and dredged material.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS HATIONAL PURPOSE AND NEED
Section 103 of Title I requires the CE to consider in its evaluation of
Federal projects and Section 103 permit applications the effects of ocean
disposal of dredged material on human health, welfare, or amenities, or the
marine environment, ecological systems, and economic potentialities. As part
1-4
-------
of this evaluation, consideration must be given to utilizing, to the extent
feasible, ocean disposal sites designated by the EPA pursuant to Section
102(c;. Since 1977 the CE has used those ocean disposal sites designated by
EPA on an interim basis. Use of these interim-designated sites for ocean
disposal has been an essential element of CE compliance with the requirements
of the MPRSA and its ability to carry out its statutory responsibility for
maintaining the nation's navigable waterways. To continue to maintain U.S.
waterways, the CE considers it essential that environmentally acceptable ocean
disposal sites be identified, evaluated, and permanently designated for
continued use pursuant to Section 102(c). These sites will be used after
review of each project has established that the proposed ocean disposal of
dredged material is in compliance with the criteria and requirements of EPA
and CE regulations.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOCAL NEED
Portland Harbor is the leading port in northern New England in terrns of
tonnage. Foreign and domestic cargo ships carried over 1.3.5 million tons of
cargo to and from this port in 1979. As a result of natural shoaling, Portland
Harbor Channels must be periodically dredged to safely accommodate ship traffic:
"As a result of .a hydrographic survey conducted between March and June 1974,
the New England Division determined that dredging was required in the 35-foot
[10.7m] Fore River Channel and Turning Basin. In some areas, shoaling has
reduced the channel depth to only 30 feet [9m] at mean low water. The dredging
will restore the project depth of 35 feet to accommodate shipping" (CE, 1979).
The need is to consider the various disposal alternatives including ocean
disposal for disposal by large quantities of material generated from annual
dredging of the port.
Dredging of the channel to a safe operating depth of 35 ft is critical to the
shipping economy and to sustain a vital component of Maine's economy. The CE
maintains the channel in the harbor as .part of a Federal project for the New
England region. The CE published an E1S in June 1979 titled "Maintenance
Dredging Portland Harbor, Portland, Maine," concluding that disposal of dredged
material from the harbor into the ocean was the most environmentally and
economically feasible method.
1-5
-------
EPA PURPOSE AND SEED
As previously seated, the CE has indicated a need for locating and
designating environmentally acceptable ocean dredged material disposal sites
to carry out its responsibilities under the MPRSA and other Federal statutes.
Therefore, in response to the CE's stated need, EPA, in cooperation with the
'JE, has initiated the necessary studies pursuant to the requirements of 40 GF3.
223.4(e; to select, evaluate, and possibly designate ;he nost suitable sites
for the ocean disposal of dredged material. This document has been prepared
to provide the public and decisionmakers with relevant information to assess
the impacts associated with the final designation for one of the sites
proposed for final designation as the Portland ODMDS. It is not anticipated
that the CZ will conduct any further environmental studies with respect tc the
selection of this site.
INTERIM DUMPING SITES
On 11 January 1977, EPA promulgated final Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria to implement MPRSA. The Regulations set forth criteria and
procedures for the selection and designation, of ocean disposal sites. In
addition, the regulations designated 129 ocean sites for the disposal of
dredged material to allow the CE to fully couoly with the purpose and
procedural provisions of the MPRSA. These sites co.uld be used for an interim
period by the CE, pending completion of site designation studies as required
by the Regulations. Use of the interim-designated sites by the CE would be
dependent on compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in EPA's
Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria.
Those sites given interim designation were selected by EPA in consultation
with the CE, with the size and location of each site based on historic use.
The interim designation would remain in force for a period not to exceed 3
years from the date of the final promulgation of the Regulations. However,
due to the length of time required to complete the necessary environmental
1-6
-------
studies and operating restraints of both a technical and budgetary nature,
environmental studies were not completed within the approved 3-year period. As
a result, the Regulations were amended in January 1980 to extend the interim
designation for those sites currently under study for a period not to exceed 3
years, while the remaining sites' interim status was extended indefinitely,
pending completion of studies and determination of the need for continuing use.
The Regulations were amended in February 1983 to extend the interim site
designaiton for a period not to exceed 18 months, pending completion of EIS's
and formal rulemaking procedures (40 CFR Part 228 [WH-FRC-2297-7] ).
SITE STUDIES
In niid-1977, EPA, by contract, initiated environmental studies on selected
nondredged material disposal sites. The studies were designed to characterize
the sites' chemical, physical, and biological features and to provide the data
neede'd to evaluate the suitability of each site for continuing use. All
studies are being conducted in accordance with the appropriate requirements of
Part 228 of the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria. Results of these
studies are being used in the preparation of an E1S for each site where such a
statement is required by EPA po-licy. The CE, to assist EPA in its national
program for locating and designating suitable sites for the ocean disposal of
dredged materials, agreed in 1979 to join the contract effort by providing
funds for field surveys to collect and analyze baseline data. Data from each
field survey and other relevant information are being used by EPA in disposal
site evaluation study and EIS's to ascertain the acceptability of an interim
site and/or another site(s) for final designation. In addition to providing
funds, the CE agreed to further assist EPA by providing technical review and
consultation.
The EPA, in consultation with the CE, selected 25 areas containing 59
interim-designated ODMDS's for study under the EPA contract. Regional
priorities and possible application of the data to similar areas were
considered in this selection process. For some selected areas an adequate
data base was found to exist; consequently, field studies for these areas were
considered unnecessary for disposal site evaluation studies. For the
remaining selected areas, it was determined that surveys would be required for
an adequate data base to characterize the areas' physical, chemical, and
1-7
-------
biological features and to determine the suicabilicy of one or acre sices in
chese areas for permanent designation. Field surveys were initiated in early
L979 and were completed in oiid-L981.
The studies are directed to the evaluation of alternative ocean disposal
sites for the disposal of dredged material in an area. Based on the data from
the disposal site evaluation study and other relevant information, an EIS will
be prepared for each of the 25 selected areas. These E1S's only address those
issues germane to the selection, evaluation, ami final designation of
environmentally acceptable ODMDS's. As a result, the data and conclusions
contained in Chapters 2, 5, and 4 are limited to those significant issues
relevant to site designation (i.e., analyses of impacts on site and adjacent
area from the disposal of dredged material). N'on-ocean disposal alternatives
(e.g., upland, beach nourishment) are not addressed in the EIS ' s since site
designation is independent of individual project disposal requirements.
nowever, in the event chat non-ocean disposal alternatives have beer.
previously addressed by Federal projects or Section L03 permit application
EIS' s, a summary of the results and conclusion is included in Chapter 2.
SITE DESIGNATION
In accordance with the EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria, site
designation will be by promulgation through formal rulemaking. The decision
by EPA to designate one or more sites for continuing use will be based on
appropriate Federal statutes-, disposal site evaluation study, EIS, supporting
documentation and public comments oa Che Draft EIS, Final EIS, and the public
notice issued as part of the proposed rul6making.
In the event that the selected area is deemed suitable for final
designation, it is EPA's position that the site designation process, including
the one or more disposal sites evaluation study and the development of the
EIS, fulfill all statutory requirements for the selection, evaluation, and
designation of an ODMDS.
1-8
-------
The EIS and supporting documents provide the necessary information to
determine whether the proposed site(s) is suitable for final designation. In
the event that an interim-designated site is deemed unacceptable for
continuing use, the site's interim designation will be terminated and either
the no-action alternative will be selected (no site will be designated) or
one or more alternative sites will be selected/designated. Furthermore, final
site designation infers only EPA's determinations that the proposed site is
suitable for the disposal of dredged material. Approval for use of the site
will be determined only after review of each project to ensure that the
proposed ocean disposal of dredged material is in compliance with the criteria
and requirements of EPA and CE regulations.
LEGISLATION AND REGULATION BACKGROUND
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Despite legislation dating back almost 100 years for the control of
disposal into rivers, harbors, and coastal waters, ocean disposal of dredged
material was not specifically regulated in the United States until passage of
the MPRSA in October 1972. The first limited regulation was provided by the
Supervisor of New York Harbor Act of 1888, which empowered the Supervisor (a
U.S. Navy line officer) to prevent the illegal deposit of obstructive and
injurious materials in New York Harbor, its,adjacent and tributary waters, and
Long Island Sound. In 1952. an., amendment provided that the Secretary of the
Army appoint a Corps of/Engineers pfficer- as Supervisor and, since that date,
each New York District Engineer .has automatically become the Supervisor of the
Harbor. In L958 an amendment extended the act to apply to the harbors of
Hampton Roads, Virginia, and Baltimore, Maryland. Under the 1888 act, the
Supervisor of the Harbor established sites in the Hudson River, Long Island
Sound, and Atlantic Ocean for dumping certain types of materials. Further
limited regulation was-provided by .the River and Harbor Act of 1899, which
prohibited the unauthorized disposal of refuse into navigable waters (Section
13) and prohibited the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable
water (Section 10).
1-9
-------
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was passed in 195DMRP) in 197 3, a 5-year, $30-million
research effort. Objectives were (1) to understand why and under what
conditions dredged material disposal might result in' adverse environmental
impacts, and (2) to develop procedures and disposal options to minimize
adverse impacts (CE, 1977).
Two important acts were passed in 1972 that specifically addressed the
control of waste disposal in aquatic and marine environments: (1) the Federal
Water Pollution Cont-rol Act Amendments '('"FWPCA), later amended by the Clean
Water Act of 1977, and (2) the MPRSA. Section 404 of the FWPCA established a
permit program, administered by the Secretary of the Army acting through the
Chief of Engineers, to regulate the discharge of dredged material into the
waters of the United States £as defined at 33 CFR 323.2iaj). Permit
applications are evaluated using guidelines jointly developed by EPA and the
CE. Section 404(c) gives the EPA Administrator authority to restrict or
prohibit dredged material disposal if the operation will have unacceptable
adverse effects on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas
1-10
-------
(including spawning and breeding grounds;, wildlife, or recreational areas.
Procedures Co be used by EPA in making such a determination are found at
40 CFR 231.
MPRSA regulates the transportation and ultimate dumping of barged materials
in ocean waters. The act is divided into three parts: Title I—Ocean
Dumping, Title 11—Comprehensive Research on Ocean Dumping, and Title 111—
Marine Sanctuaries. This EIS is concerned only with Title 1 of the act.
Title 1, the primary regulatory section of MPRSA, establishes the permit
program for the disposal of dredged and nondredged materials, mandates
determination of impacts and alternative disposal methods, and provides for
enforcement of permit conditions. The purpose of Title 1 is to prevent or
strictly limit the dumping of materials that would unreasonably affect human
health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems,
or economic potentialities. Title I of the act provides procedures for
regulating the transportation and disposal of materials into ocean waters
under the jurisdiction or control of the . United States. Any person of any
nationality wishing to transport waste material from a U.S. port, or from any
port under a U.S. flag, to be dumped anywhere in the oceans of the world, is
required to obtain a permit.
Title 1 prohibits the dumping into ocean waters of certain wastes,
including radiological, biological, or chemical warfare agents, and all
high-level radioactive wastes. In March 1974, Title I was amended (PL 93-253)
to bring the act into full compliance with the Convention, on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, discussed below under
"International Considerations." The provisions of Title I include a maximum
criminal fine of $50,000 and jail sentence of up to 1 year for every
unauthorized dump or violation of permit requirements, or a maximum civil fine
of $50,000. Any individual may seek an injunction against an unauthorized
dumper with possible recovery of all costs .of litigation.
1-11
-------
FEDERAL CONTROL PROGRAMS
Several Federal departments and agencies participate in che implementation
of MPRSA requirements, with the lead responsibility given to EPA (Table 1-L).
in October L973, EPA implemented its responsibility for regulating ocean
dumping under MPRSA by issuing the Final Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria, which were revised in January 1977 (40 CFR 220-229;. The Ocean
Dumping Regulations established the procedures and criteria to apply for
dredged material permits (Part 225), enforce permit conditions (Part 225),
evaluate permit applications for environmental impact (Part 227), and
designate and manage ocean disposal sites (Part 228).
OCEAN DUMPING EVALUATION PROCEDURES
The Ocean Dumping Regulations specify the procedures for evaluating the
effects of dredged aaterial disposal. The EPA and CE evaluate Federal
projects and permit applications for non-Federal projects to determine ('./
whether there is a demonstrated need for ocean disposal and that other
environmentally sound and economically reasonable alternatives do not exist
(40 CFR 227 Subpart C), and (2) compliance with the environmental impact
criteria (40 CFR 227 Subparts 3, D, and E). Figure 1-2 outlines the cycle
used to evaluate the acceptability of dredged material for ocean disposal.
Under Section 103 of MPRSA, the Secretary of the Army is given the
authority, with certain restrictions, to issue permits for the transportation
of material dredged from non-CE projects for ocean disposal. For Federal
projects involving dredged material disposal, Section 103(e) of MPRSA provides
that "the Secretary [of the Army] may, In lieu of the permit procedure, issue
regulations which will require the application to such projects of the same
criteria, other factors to be evaluated, the same procedures, and the same
requirements which apply to the issuance of permits..." for non-Federal
dredging projects involving disposal of dredged material. Consequently, both
Federal and non-Federal dumping requests ..undergo identical regulatory reviews.
The only difference is that, after the review and approval of the dumping
request, non-Federal projects are issued an actual permit. The CE is
1-12
-------
TABLE 1-1
RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS
AND AGENCIES FOR REGULATING OCEAN DISPOSAL UNDER MPRSA
Department/Agency
Responsibility
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Transportation
Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of State
Issuance of waste disposal permits,
other than for dredged material
Establishment of criteria for
regulating waste disposal
Enforcement actions
Site designation and management
Overall ocean disposal program
management
Research on alternative ocean disposal
techniques
Issuance of permits for transportation
of dredged material disposal
Recommendation of disposal site
locations
Surveillance
Enforcement support
Issuance of regulations for disposal
vessels
Review of permit applications
Long-term monitoring and research
Comprehensive ocean dumping impact and
short-term effect studies
Marine sanctuary designation
Court actions
International agreements
1-13
-------
DREDGING PROIECT AND
APPROPRIATE INFORMATION
IDENTIFIED TO CORPS OF
ENGINEERS
APPROPRIATE
INFORMATION
DISTRICT ENGINEER
NOTIFIES REGIONAL
XOMl.NlSTRATOR
ELUTRIATE V.NO
BIOASSAIT TEST RESULTS
CHARACTERISTICS VND
COMPOSITION Of
DREDGED MATERIAL
ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL
TECHNIQUES CONSIDERED
SITE LOCATION
HISTORICAL USE
OF THE SITE
DOCUMENTED EFFECTS
PREVIOUS DUMPING
OF
LENGTH OF TIME
FOR OPERATION
EXISTENCE OF OR
NEED FOR EIS
REVIEW 8Y REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR IH.I
NOTIFIES DISTRICT ENGINEER
OF NONCOMPIIANCE OF
MATERIAL WITH CRITERIA
NOTIFIES DISTRICT ENGINEER
OF COMPLIANCE OF MATERIAL
WITH CRITERIA
OCEAN DISPOSAL GRANTED
DISTRICT ENGINEER WILL
REEVALUATE ALTERNATIVES
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE
AVAILABLE
NO FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE
AVAILABLE: INFORMS REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF
OF ENGINEERS
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
CONSIDERS ALTERNATES
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE EPA
CONSIDERS WAIVER
NO FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE
REQUESTS WAIVER
SECRETARY OF \RMY
SEEKS WAIVER FROM
ADMINISTRATOR Of THE EPA
REFUSES
WAIVER
OCEAN DISPOSAL
NOT GRANTED
Figure 1-2. Dredged Material Evaluation Cycle
1-14
-------
responsible for evaluating disposal applications and granting permits to
dumpers of dredged materials; however, dredged material disposal sites are
designated and managed by the EPA Administrator or his designee. Conse-
quently, dredged material generated by Federal and non-Federal projects must
satisfy the requirements of the MPRSA (as detailed in the Ocean Dumping
Regulations) to be acceptable for ocean disposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL III PACT CRITERIA
Section 103(a) of the MPRSA states that dredged material may be dumped into
ocean waters after determination that "the dumping will not unreasonably
degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine
environment, or economic potentialities." This applies to the ocean disposal
of dredged materials from both Federal and non-Federal projects. To ensure
that ocean dumping will not unreasonably degrade or endanger public health and
the marine environment, the Ocean Dumping Regulations restrict the transpor-
tation of all materials for dumping, specifically:
• Prohibited materials: High-level radioactive wastes; materials
produced or used for rad'iological, Chemical, or biological warfare;
materials insufficiently described to apply the Criteria (40 CFR
227); and persistent inert synthetic or natural materials which
float or remain suspended and interfere with fishing, navigation, or
other uses of the ocean.
• Constituents prohibited as other than trace contaminants: Organo-
halogens; mercury and mercury compounds; cadmium and cadmium
compounds; oil; and known or suspected carcinogens, mutagens, or
teratogens.
• Strictly regulated materials: Liquid waste constituents immiscible
with or slightly soluble in seawater (e.g., benzene), radioactive
materials, wastes containing living organisms, highly acidic or
alkaline wastes, and wastes exerting an oxygen demand.
1-15
-------
Dredged material is environmentally acceptable for ocean disposal without
further testing if it satisfies any one of the following criteria:
• Dredged material is composed predominantly of sand, gravel,
rock, or any other naturally occurring bottom material with
particle sizes larger than silt, and the material is found
in areas of high current or wave energy...
• Dredged material is for beach nourishment or restoration and
is composed predominantly of sand, gravel, or shell...
« When: (i) the material proposed for dumping is sub-
stantially the same as the substrate at the proposed
disposal site; and (ii) the [proposed dredging] site...is
far removed from known existing and historical sources of
pollution so as to provide reasonable assurance that such
material has not been contaminated by such pollution. OO
CFR 227.13ibj)
If dredged material does not meet the above criteria, then further testing
of cne liquid, suspended particulate, and solid phases is required. The Ocean
Dumping Regulations require that the liquid phasS "not contain... constituents
in concentrations which will exceed applicable marine water quality criteria
after allowance for initial mixing" (40 CFR 227.6), and that "bioassays on the
liquid phase of the dredged material show that it can be discharged so as not
to exceed the limiting permissible concentration..." (40 CFR 227. 13)-
The suspended particulate and solid phases must be tested using bioassays
which can demonstrate that dredged materials will not cause the "occurrence of
significant mortality or significant adverse sublethal effects including
bioaccumulation due. to the dumping..." and that the dredged material "can be
discharged so as not to exceed the limiting permissible concentration...."
The bioassays ensure that "no significant undesirable effects will occur due
either to chronic toxicity or to bioaccumulation." The required testing
ensures that dredged material contains only constituents which are:
(1) present in the material only as chemical compounds or
forms (e.g., inert insoluble solid materials) non-toxic to
marine life and non-bioaccumulative in the marine
environment upon disposal and thereafter, or (2) present in
the material only as chemical compounds or forms which, at
the time of dumping and thereafter, will be rapidly
1-16
-------
rendered non-toxic to marine life and non-bioaccumulative
in the marine environment by chemical or biological
degradation in the sea; provided they will not make edible
marine organisms unpalatable; or will not endanger human
health or that of domestic animals, fish, shellfish, or
wildlife. (40 CFR 227.6)
PERMIT ENFORCEMENT
Under MFRSA, the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is assigned
responsibility by the Secretary of Transportation for conducting surveillance
of disposal operations to ensure compliance with the permit conditions and to
discourage unauthorized disposal. Alleged violations are referred to EPA for
appropriate enforcement. Civil penalties include a maximum fine of $50,000;
criminal penalties involve a maximum fine of $50,000 and/or a 1-year jail
term. Where administrative enforcement action is not appropriate, £PA may
request the Department of Justice to initiate relief actions in court for
violations of the terms of MPRSA. Surveillance is accomplished by means of
spot checks of disposal vessels for valid permits, interception or escorting
of dump vessels, use of shipriders, and aircraft overflights during dumping.
The Commandant of the Coast Guard has published guidelines for ocean
dumping surveillance and enforcement in Commandant Instruction 16470.2B, dated
29 September 1976. An enclosure to the instruction is an Interagency
Agreement between the CE and the USCG regarding surveillance and enforcement
responsibilities over federally contracted ocean dumping activities associated
with Federal Navigation Projects. Under the agreement, the CE "recognizes
that it has the primary surveillance and enforcement responsibility over these
activities." The CE directs and conducts the surveillance effort over CE
contract dumpers engaged in ocean disposal activities, except in New York and
San Francisco; the USCG retains primary responsibility for surveillance in
these two areas. In all other areas, the USCG will respond to specific
requests from the CE for surveillance missions. The USCG retains responsi-
bility for surveillance of all dredged material ocean dumping activities which
are not associated with Federal Navigation Projects.
1-17
-------
OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
EPA is conducting studies of various disposal sites in order to aeter-aine
their acceptability. The agency has designated a number of existing disposal
sites for use on an interim basis until studies are completed and formal
designation or termination of each site is decided (40 CFR 2.23.12, as amended
Lt» January I960, 45 FR j053).
Under Section i02(c) of MPRSA, EPA is authorized to designate sites and
times for ocean disposal of acceptable materials. Therefore, EPA established
criteria for site designation in the Regulations. These include general and
specific criteria for site selection and procedures for designating the sites
for disposal. If it appears that a proposed site can satisfy the general
criteria, then the specific criteria for site selection will be considered.
Once designated, the site nay be monitored for adverse disposal impacts. The-
criteria for site selection and monitoring are decailed in Chapter 1.
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The principal international agreement governing ocean dumping is the
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter (London Dumping Convention), which became effective in August
1975, upon ratification by 15 contracting countries including the Uniced
States (26 UST 2403: TIAS 8165). There are now 44 contracting parties.
Designed to control dumping of wastes in the ocean, the Convention specifies
that contracting nations will regulate disposal in the marine environment
within their jurisdiction and prohibit disposal without permits. Certain
hazardous materials are prohibited (e.g., radiological, biological, and
chemical warfare agents, and high-level radioactive matter). Certain other
materials (e.g., cadmium, mercury, organohalogens and their compounds; oil;
and persistent, synthetic, or natural materials that float or remain in
suspension) are also prohibited as other than trace contaminants. Other
materials (e.g., arsenic, lead, copper, zinc, cyanides, fluorides, organo-
silicon, and pesticides) are not prohibited from ocean disposal, but require
1-18
-------
special care. Pennies are required for ocean disposal of materials not
specifically prohibited. The nature and quantities of all ocean-dumped
material, and the circumstances of disposal, must be periodically reported to
the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (1MCO), which is
responsible for administration of the Convention.
U.S. ocean dumping criteria are based on the provisions of the London
Dumping Convention (LDC) and include all the considerations listed in Annexes
I, 11, and III of the LDC. Agreements reached under the LDC also allow
exclusions from biological testing for dredged material from certain
locations. These agreements are also reflected in the U.S. ocean dumping
criteria. Thus, when a material is found to be acceptable for ocean dumping
under the U.S. ocean dumping criteria, it is also acceptable under the LDC.
1-19
-------
Chapter 2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
Chapter 2 discusses alternative ocean locations for the
designation and disposal of dredged materials from the
Portland Harbor channel system, as well as the no-action
alternative. The 11 criteria at 40 CFR 228.6 are the basis
for comparing environmental impacts associated with
disposal at each site. The Existing Site is environ-
mentally and economically acceptable for dredged material
disposal. Minor environmental impacts resulting from
dredged material disposal at the Existing Site are
smothering of benthic fauna and formation of mounds. On
the basis of previous use and the absence of significant
adverse impacts, EPA proposes that, in accordance with 40
CFR 228.5, the Existing Site receive final designation.
The orooosed action is the permanent designation of the Exising Site for Che
disposal of dredged materials from the Portland Harbor Channel System. Rased o.i
an evaluation of a number of alternatives, the EPA has determined that the
proposed site for the disposal of dredged material in the Existing Site. The
dredged material is a result of the operation and maintenance of the Portland,
Harbor Channel System.
The alternatives considered were:
o No-Action: The No-Action alternative to final designation is not
considered acceptable. The interim designation of the Existing Site ODMDS
will exoire in February 1983 without the permanent designation of that site
or an alternative site for continuing use.
o Non-Ocean Disposal: The non-ocean disposal alternatives are not evaluated
since designation of an environmentally acceptable ocean disposal site is
independent of individual project disposal requirements. The non-ocean
disposal alternatives must be evaluated during the consideration of each
permit application for non-Federal projects and in the preparation of
project EIS's for Federal projects.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1
ALTERNATIVE SITE SUMMARY
Sites Eliminated from
Further Consideration
Land
Coastal marshland
Shallow water
(historical sites)
Other nearby sites
Off the Continental Shelf
Sites Considered for
Detailed Evaluation
Reason
CE determination
Environmental damage
Lobster fishery
Most would be acceptable except when they are
in known fishery areas. No obvious advantage.
Environmentally acceptable, but not economical,
due to distance of 240 nnii . Mo obvious
advantage.
Reason
Deepwater (near Wilkinson
Basin)
Existing Site
Closest area for comparison
Acceptable environmentally and to the fishing
industry
o Ocean Disposal Alternatives Rejected: A number of alternative oce.HP.
disposal sites were considered and rejected after initial evaluation. The
sites and the reasons for their rejection are shown in Table 2-1.
o Ocean Disposal Alternatives Considered in Detail: The initial evaluation
indicated that two ocean disposal sites were potentially environmentallv
acceptable for the disposal of dredge material. This SIS have been
evaluated in detail the following sites.
The interim site, known as the Existing Sites
A new location in the Wilkinson Basin
2-2
-------
o ^S.1^H Disposal Alternatives Rejected: A number of alternative ocean
disposal sites were considered and rejected after initial evaluation. The
sites and the reasons for their rejection are shown in Table 2-1.
o Ocean Disposal Alternatives Considered in Detail: The initial evaluation
indicated that two ocean disposal sites were potentially environmentally
acceptable for the disposal of dredge material. This EIS have been
evaluated in detail the following sites.
The interim site, known as the Existing Sites
A new location in the Wilkinson Basin
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No-Action alternative to the proposed action would be refrain from
designating an EPA-approved ocean site for the disposal of dredged material from
the Portland Harbor channel system. The Existing Site is currently designated on
an interim basis. The interim designation is scheduled to expire in February
1983, unless formal ruleraaking is completed earlier that either: (1) designates
the interim site for continuing use, or (2) selects and designates and
alternative site.
By taking no action, the present ocean disposal site would not receive a final
designation, nor would an alternative ocean disposal site be designated.
Consequently, the CE would not have an EPA-recoraraended ocean disposal site
available in the area. Therefore, the CE would be required to either: (1)
justify an acceptable alternative disposal method (e.g., land based), or (2)
develop information sufficient to select an acceptable ocean site for disposal or
(3) modiry or cancel a proposed dredging project that depends upon disposal in
the ocean as they only feasible method for the disposal of dredged material.
Based on these factors the No-Action Alternative is not considered to be an
acceptable alternative to the proposed action.
2-3
-------
LAND-BASED DISPOSAL
The purpose and need for disposal of dredged material in the ocean is
presented in Chapter 1. The feasibility of using land-based alternatives for
disposal of dredged material in the Portland area is discussed and considered
impractical in "Final Environmental Statement, Maintenance Dredging Portland
Harbor, Portland, Maine" (CE, L979).
Neither land-based disposal nor any other feasible alternatives mentioned
in the Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR §227.15) are being
permanently set aside in favor of disposal in the ocean. The need for dumping
in the ocean muse be demonstrated each time an application for a dumping
permit is made. At that time che availability of other feasible alternatives
must be assessed. The CE (1979) stated with regard to Portland:
Land Disposal
6.04 Land disposal could be accomplished using a
hydraulic or a clamshell dredge. However, neither method
as associated with the dredging of Portland Harbor would be
feasible because of the absence of larger available land
areas in the waterfront area. In the case of hydraulic
dredging, a slurry of sediment and water is sucked from the
bottom and pumped to an on-shore area. The average dredge
can pump material approximately 30-40 feet in elevation
including the depth of the channel, and one mile in
distance. These limitations can be increased if additional
dredges or booster pumps are plugged into the pipeline to
increase the pumping capacity of the system. However,
extra dredges and pumps significantly increase the cost of
the dredging project to a point where it would far exceed
the cost of disposing of the dredged material at sea.
6.05 If a clamshell dredge is used in conjunction
with a land [disposal] area, the sediment would be
excavated and placed in scows. The scows would then have
to be maneuvered to an area adjacent to a waterway where
the material would be off-loaded and allowed to dry. If
this area was not available permanently, then the material
would have to be handled a third time by placing it in
trucks. This would create yet another problem due to the
social impacts of increased trucking in the Portland area.
2-4
-------
6.06 Another alternative would be to construct
marshes from the dredged materials. Although, this would be
an ideal use for the material, there is insufficient
information on the requirements of New England marshes for
this to be a feasible alternative.
In the process of selecting a disposal site, land disposal alternatives
were considered by the CE when evaluating the need for disposal. Based on
the foregoing, the CE determined a need for an ocean disposal site. This EIS
addresses the issues pertinent to the selection of an environmentally
acceptable ocean disposal site(s). The evaluations and selection of an
environmentally acceptable ODMDS are independent of individual project
requirements. Non-ocean disposal alternatives will be considered along with
the ODMDS in planning of disposal of material from future Federal and
permitted dredging projects (see designation statement, page 1-2; also pages
1-8 and 1-9). DISPOSAL IN THE OCEAN
The disposal of Portland Harbor channel system sediments in the ocean is
the most feasible disposal method. Selecting a disposal site in the ocean
requires identifying and evaluating suitable areas for receiving dredged
sediments. Identification of such areas is based on information obtained from
environmental research, State and Federal resource agencies, and district and
divisional offices of the CE. Specific alternative (or candidate) sites may
be identified within these areas based on historic and current use of the
area, presence of previously used disposal sites, and recommendations from
district and divisional offices of the CE. Evaluation of specific viable
alternative sites or areas are based on the II specific site selection
criteria listed at 40 CFR 228.6 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations.
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES
The general criteria in the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 228.5) used
to select a disposal site in the ocean include:
• The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only
at sites or in areas selected to minimize the Interference of
2-5
-------
disposal activities with other activities in the marine
environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries
or shellfisheries , and regions of heavy commercial or
recreational navigation.
• Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen
that temporary perturbations in water quality...can
be...reduced to normal ambient seavater levels or to
undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before
reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known
geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.
« The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize... any immediate adverse impacts and permit the
implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance
programs to prevent adverse long—range impacts.
• ...wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the
edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have
been historically used.
Sites initially considered include the Existing Site, two other sites near
the Existing Site (Normandeau Site [interim EPA site] and Hue and Cry Site),
the two old nearshore sites A and 3, and a site near the Wilkinson Basin; the
latter is referred to as the Alternative Site (Figure L-L).
Because no other ocean disposal sites in the Portland area have received
final designation, the alternative of using another designated site cannot be
considered. An alternative site off the Continental Shelf was rejected
because the cost of transporting the material would be excessive and no
significant environmental benefits would be derived.
2-6
-------
The Continental Margin adjacent to Portland can be divided into three
regions corresponding to the nearshore, mid-Shelf, and Shelf-break environ-
ments. Potential for adverse effects from dredged material disposal on
fisheries, ecology, and navigation is different for each environment.
Dredged material disposal is not expected to have a significant Impact on
water quality, endanger marine resources, or Introduce nuisance species into
the Existing Site. The effects of sediment disposal on benthic organisms
depend on the mobility and specific tolerance to changes in sediment texture.
Based on studies at the Existing and other disposal sites, it is unlikely that
previous and present dumping have caused significant changes in benthic
diversity and density due to burial of sessile infauna. However, subsequent
changes in fish food availability may cause a temporary decrease in demersal
fish abundance and diversity.
Fishing activities are significant in the nearshore region; lobster,
salmonids, and several species of demersal finfish occur throughout the
nearshore and adjacent shallow Shelf areas. Previous disposal of dredged
material has not noticeably affected nearshore fisheries. Further offshore
the mid-Shelf region also supports a valuable commercial bottom fishery.
Because of the importance of fisheries in many coastal areas of the U.S.,
Pequegnat et al. (1978) advocated dredged material disposal sites seaward of
the 500m isobath.
Dredged material disposal has not previously occurred at either mid-Shelf
or outer Shelf locations in the Portland area. Mid-Shelf and outer Shelf
sediments are characteristically more stable than nearshore sediments (Carey,
1972); therefore, benthic organisms occurring in these regions may be more
sensitive to sediment changes (Oliver et al., 1977).
The Existing Site is inshore of heavily fished Shelf areas and offshore of
the major lobster and recreational fishing grounds. Some lobstering occurs in
the vicinity of the Existing Site, especially in winter, but the catch is low
(CE, 1979). The Existing Site is inside the precautionary zone for
navigation, but outside the navigation channels, and disposal operations are
2-7
-------
not expected to L>«. a hazard to commercial and recreational vessel traffic.
Although no records are on file at the CE, the site was probably used in 1946
or 1947 when an indeterraine amount of Portland Harbor dredged material was
dumped. The Federal Channel maintenance dredging project occurred during
1979 to 1981 and various private dredging projects in the area have been
occurring and are still in progress. The presently active private dredging
is expected to result in an additional 300,000 yd3 deposited at the
existing site.
No pre- or post-disposal data were collected in the vicinity of the
Existing Site during the 1940's to 1960'3. "Selection of the Existing Site for
dredged material .disposal was based on recommendations of the local fishing
industry, recent scientific studies, and historical use of the site. Recent
disposal of dredged sediment has produced only localized, minor, and
reversible adverse impacts: mounding, smothering of benchic organisms, and,
possibly, a temporary decrease in the abundances of demersal fish. Disposal
of dredged material in previously used nearshore sites (i.e., 'Sites A and B)
(Figure 1-1) would not significantly ameliorate any adverse effects on the
environment, and may conflict with commercial fisheries. Therefore,
designation of nearshore sices, ocher than the Existing Site, is not
recommended or considered further in this EIS.
The only large, deep basins having silty-clay bottom sediments on the eastern
Continental Shelf are in the Gulf of Maine. Wilkinson Basin is the closest basin
to Portland, aooroximately 21 nmi (39.9 km) southeast of che Harbor. The Basin
is 35.1 nmi (65 km) long, 5.4 nmi (10 km) wide (within the 180m isobath), .and
trends northwest to southeast. It is flat-bottomed and contains silty-clay
sediments resembling Portland dredged material. Similarities is sediment
comoosicion and oroximity to Portland suggests the oossible. use of the Wilkinson
Rasin as acceptable area from which a site suitable for dredged material disposal
could be selected.
In 1974 Wilkinson Basin was selected as a Geotechnical Test Area because it
is a shallow-water analogue of a deep-sea basin near academic institutions.
The test area is defined by the 260m contour and was created to provide an
area for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) of undersea
systems (Richards, 1970; Hulbert and Given, 1975). Subsequent studies have
examined the engineering, physical, and chemical aspects of Basin sediments
(Parker, 1973; Hulbert and Given, 1975; Faas and Nittrouer, 1976; Perlow and
2-3
-------
Richards, 1977). In order not to interfere with the research area, yet offer
an alternative deepwater site, a 1-runi square near the Wilkinson Basin
centered at 43°18'N, -69°52'W (hereinafter, the Alternative Site) has been
selected for consideration as an alternative in this EIS. The Alternative
Site pr-ivides an dredged material disposal site in deep water, but it is not
beyond the Continental Shelf, and was not chosen by Pequegnat et al., (1978)
as one of the potential "favorable disposal areas" (areas below the BOCHm
isobath) off the northeastern Continental Shelf. The site overlies the axis
of a depression at the head of the basin in water depths of about 180m;
fishery resources are not abundant, and the site is probably beyond the depth
where dumping would interfere with these resources. Other potential sites
beyond the nearshore Shelf have been rejected because there would be no
significant environmental benefits, and would probably require greater
transit distance, time, and expense.
Dumping has occurred previously at the Existing Site and no significant
adverse environmental effects have been reported. Multiple sites are not
needed to facilitate dredged material disposal, or accommodate larger volumes
of dredged material. On the basis of previous use, cost effectiveness, and
the absence of significant adverse impacts, continued use of the Existing
Site is proposed.
Additional shallow-water sites are not needed for continued dredged
material disposal at this time and, therefore, are not recommended for final
designation.
DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITES
Part 228 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria describes general
and specific criteria for selection of sites to be used for ocean waste
disposal. Section 228.6 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations lists 11 specific
criteria to be considered when selecting a disposal site. The 11 criteria
constitute "an environmental assessment of the impact of the use of the site
for disposal" (40 CFR §228.61. b) ), and are the bases for final site selection.
The alternative sites considered for final designation within the context of
2-9
-------
the 11 criteria are the Existing Site and the Alternative Site. Information
in Chapters 3 and 4 is utilized in the following discussion for comparison of
the sites under each criterion.
(1) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION, DEPTH OF WATER,
BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY AND DISTANCE FROM COAST (40 CFR §228.6[a][1])
EXISTING SITE
The Existing Site is 6.8 nmi offshore of the closest point of land and
11 rani from the entrance to Portland Harbor (Figure 1-1). Water depths at the
site range from 39 to 64m. Bottom topography is characterized by rough,
irregular rocky outcrops with topographic changes (relief) on the order of
20m. A fine-grained sand- and sil:-covered basin (approximately 600 by 600m)
in the center of the site (43°34'06"N, 70°01'43"W) is marked by a buoy for
point disposal of dredged material.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
The Alternative Site is 21 nmi offshore and at a water depth at about
130 tn (Figure 1-1). The site overlies the axis of a trough oriented in a
northest-southeast direction; the upper trough topography is characterized by
a broar! flat valley '.*ith ILLtlo reltpf.
(2) LOCATION IN RELATION TO BREEDING,
SPAWNING, NURSERY. FEEDING, OR PASSAGE AREAS OF LIVING
RESOURCES IN ADULT OR JUVENILE PHASES (40 CFR §228.6[a][2])
EXISTING SITE
Breeding, spawning, nursery, and passage activities of some commercially
important finfish and shellfish species occur on a seasonal basis across the
western Shelf of the Gulf of Maine. Effects of dumping on such activities are
unknown; however, past dredged material disposal is not known to have caused
detectable, significant, or irreversible effects on living resources. There
2-10
-------
are no known or proposed sanctuaries in the vicinity of either site. Upon the
recommendation from commercial fishermen, the Existing Site was located
between the inshore fishing grounds for lobster and the offshore dragging
areas for finfish.
During the spawning season, from late spring to midsummer, lobster (Homarus
americanus) move into shallow water (less than 20m) inshore of the Existing
Site. The eggs are carried by the females for 10 to 11 months, hatching from
May through July, with a peak in late June to early July. The larvae remain
in the planktonic form for 2 to 3 months before settling to the bottom as
juvenile lobsters. The probability that dredged material disposal at the
Existing Site will interfere with lobster spawning is small. Some larvae,
however, may be affected by transient postdisposal effects (e.g., turbidity
plume, possible low dissolved oxygen), especially between May and October.
This interference should not significantly affect the larvae because disposal
occurs irregularly and affects a small area.
Impacts of dredged material disposal on demersal fish at the Existing Site
are probably only temporary changes in (1) abundance, (2) numbers of species,
(3) mean size, and (4) food preferences. It is unlikely that disposal
activities will interfere with commercially important fish because of their
mobility; however, commercial fish that lay demersal eggs could be affected.
Two species of nearshore commercial finfish common in the Gulf of Maine have
demersal eggs (Bigelow and Schroder, 1953; TRIGOM, 1976), although neither are
likely to deposit eggs within the Existing Site. The Atlantic herring (Clupea
harengus) lays eggs on clean sand or gravel in areas of high current flow.
The Existing Site has fine sediment with minimal water motion; it is unlikely
that herring will utilize this area. The winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes
americanus) lays demersal eggs in estuaries, at depths less than 10m, and
should be unaffected.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
Although site-specific biological information is not available for the
Alternative Site, no commercial or recreational fishing occurs within the
2-11
-------
area. Some submarine canyons are known to be spawning grounds for certain
fish and squid species (Pequegnac et al., 1978). It is noc presently known
whether the Alternative Site is used as a spawning and nursing ground.
Species which may use the area include gray sole (Glyptocephalus cynoglosus),
American dab (Hippoglossoides platessoides) , winter flounder (Pseudo-
pleuronectes americanus), cod (_Cadus morrhua), haddock (Melanogrammus
aeglefinis) , silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) and pollock (Pollachius virens).
Potential effects of dredged material disposal on these species are unknown.
(3) LOCATION IN RELATION TO BEACHES AND OTHER
AMENITY AREAS (40 CPR 5228.6{a][3])
EXISTING SITE
The Existing Sice is 6.8 ntni from the nearest point of land. Distance fro-n
shore, water deoth, and configuration of Che basin (in the center of che sice)
will decrease che possibility of dredged material reaching beaches or other
amenity areas. The fate of dredged sediments at the Existing Site is shown to
remain within the duroosite.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
Significant quantities of dredged material released at the Alternative Site
could not reach coastal beaches or other amenity areas because the Site is
21 nmi from shore, and the current regime will most likely transport sediments
into deeper water.
(4) TYPES AND QUANTITIES OP WASTES PROPOSED
TO BE DISPOSED OF. AND PROPOSED METHODS OP RELEASE,
INCLUDING METHODS OP PACKING THE WASTE. 17 ANY (40 CFR §228.6[a][4])
Dredged material to be dumped in the ocean must conform co EPA criteria set
forth at 40 CFR §227.13 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations. Sediments dredged
2-12
-------
from the channels and turning basin of Portland Harbor and vicinity are the only
material presently being disposed of at the designated site. These sediments are
composed of fine sand, silt and clay. The dredged material is transported by a
barge equipped with a bottom dump release mechanisms and is not packed in any
manner. Approximately 1 million yd-* of material has been disposed of at the
site. Future dredging volumes may contribute an additional amount of 200,000
yd^ if the navigational safety of the channels necessitates future dredging
efforts.
The CE combines the costs of dredging and disposal to obtain a dredged
material unit cost. Travel time is a component of the unit cost; consequently,
an increase in distance from dredging site to disposal site increase total costs.
The Existing Site is closer than the Wilkinson Site to the dredging area;
therefore, its use would minimize transport costs. Use of the Alternative Site
in the Wilkinson Basin area would increase the round trip transit distance by 30
nmi and total transit time by 5 hours, resulting In approximately $1.50/yd ,
based on $0.05/ydJ/mi (Conner 1979) increase in costs, or a total increase in
transportation cost of about $1,275,000.
(5) FEASIBILITY OP SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING (40 CFR §228.6[a][5])
EXISTING SITE
The CE provides a shipridet i.o confirm that dumping is in the proper
location.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
The Alternative Site is in deeper water and further distance from Portland
Harbor making it more costly to monitor than the Existing Site. Predisposal
surveys would be required.
2-13
-------
(6) DISPERSAL. HORIZONTAL TRANSPORT, AND
VERTICAL MIXING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA INCLUDING
PREVAILING CURRENT DIRECTION AND VELOCITY, IF ANY (40 CFR §228.6[a][6])
EXISTING SITE
Current velocities range from 0 to 16 cm/s at the Existing Site. Currents are
influenced by tides in a rotational manner, but net water movement is to the
southwest (DAMOS). The CE (1979) reported thac Portland Harbor dredged material
(primarily fine sand, silt, and clay) is cohesive; therefore, rapid settling of
the released sediments should occur. Minimal horizontal mixing .or vertical
stratification of dumped materials should occur, resulting in low suspended
sediment concentrations after disposal.
Previous studies have demonostrated the relative immobility of dredged
sediments dumped at the Existing Site (DAMOS), suggesting that a major portion of
dredged sediment dumped at the site will remain within site boundaries, and, most
likely, within the basin at the center of the Existing Site.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
The greater water depths at the Alternative Site should increase dispersal
of dredged material during settling. Bottom current velocities at the
Alternative Site have not been determined; however, anticipated slow currents
should tend to minimize horizontal transport and resuspension of bottom
sediments.
2-14
-------
(7) EXISTENCE AND EFFECTS OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS DISCHARGES
AND DUMPING IN THE AREA (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS) (40 CFR §228.6[a][7])
EXISTING SITE
Several industrial and municipal outfalls are located in Portland Harbor.
Although these outfalls are 11 nmi from the Existing Site, they represent the
closest point-source discharges of pollutants. Because of the distance
involved and dilution factors associated with mixing, outfalls in Portland
Harbor are not expected to have a measurable effect on the Existing Site.
Sediments collected from the disposal area contain higher levels of
mercury, cadmium, lead, and saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons than do
sediments at control stations near the Existing Site and on Georges Bank..
These higher trace metal and hydrocarbon concentrations probably reflect
contaminants present in dredged material dumped at the site.
Mussels (rtodiolus modiolus) monitored at the Existing Site and at a control
station on Bulwark Shoals indicated that tissue concentrations of .cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, mercury, nickel, and zinc were (5% to 55%) higher
at the Existing Site than at the control station (DAMOS). While high cadmium
concentrations may be associated with naturally occurring upwelling (Stephenson
et al., 1979), high zinc levels are probably associated with anthropogenic inputs
(Phillips, I976a,b). Trace metal concentrations in tissues of crustaceans and
and other benthic organisms collected at the Existing Site were below FDA Action
Levels (DAMOS).
ALTERNATIVE SITE
There has been no previous dumping at the Alternative Site or at any other
known deepwater site in the vicinity of Portland.
2-15
-------
(8) INTERFERENCE WITH SHIPPING. FISHING,
RECREATION, MINERAL EXTRACTION, DESALINATION,
FISH AND SHELLFISH CULTURE, AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC
IMPORTANCE, AND OTHER LEGITIMATE USES OF THE OCZAN (40 CFR §228.6{a][8])
EXISTING SITE
Extensive shipping, fishing, recreational activities, and scientific
investigations take place in the Gulf of Maine throughout the year. However,
previous dredged, material disposal operations are not known to have interfered
with these activities. The Bureau of Land Management does not currently plan
to lease any areas on the nearshore Continental Shelf adjacent to the Existing
Site for oil and gas exploration. Mineral extraction, desalination, and
aquaculture activities do not presently occur near the Existing Site.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
Dredged material disposal at the Alternative Site would not interfere with
shipping or fishing. Recreation and mineral extraction activities do not
occur. The Alternative Site is in an area where disposal operations would not
interfere with research in the Wilkinson Basin.
(9) THE EXISTING WATER QUALITY AND
ECOLOGY OF THE SITE, AS DETERMINED BY AVAILABLE
DATA OR BY TREND ASSESSMENT OR BASELINE SURVEYS (40 CFR §228.6[a][9])
EXISTING SITE
The water quality and benthic ecology of the Existing Site were surveyed in
1977 and 1978 by NUSC, and again in 1979 and 1980 by IEC/EPA. In general,
samples taken at the Existing Site indicate high water quality, typical of
Gulf of Maine waters. Dissolved oxygen levels are near saturation year-round,
and trace metal (lead, mercury, and cadmium) concentrations are low.
Concentrations of suspended solids decrease from the surface to 50m, then
increase as a result of bottom sediment resuspension (Spencer and Sachs,
2-16
-------
1970). The water column at the Existing Site is almost totally free of
chlorinated hydrocarbons; only small amounts (10 to 100 jig/liter) have been
detected.
The infaunal communities within the Existing Site have a high degree of
natural variability and an inconsistent pattern of species distribution. The
soft-bottom benthos sampled by DAMOS was dominated by molluscs, whereas IEC/EPA
surveys in 1979 and 1980 found the dominant taxa to be polychaetes. Although
different sampling methodologies may account for some of the observed
variability, a large variability among the benthic fauna is common in the Gulf of
Maine (Harris and Mathieson, 1977).
The epifaunal community associated with rocky surfaces was dominated by
attached suspension feeders. Photographs reveal that brachipods
(Terebratulina septentrionalis) and a solitary sponge (Polymastia infragilosa)
were the most abundant organisms. Barnacles (Balanus balanus), tunicates,
bryozoans, and several species of encrusting and erect sponges were common on
rock surfaces with little or no sediment. Mobile organisms (crustaceans,
asteroids, ophiuroids, and demersal fish) were uncommon.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
Baseline surveys have not been conducted at the Alternative Site; however,
the Alternative Site should possess higher water quality than the Existing
Site, because of the greater distance from shore. The infaunal and epifaunal
communities are probably similar to those at the Existing Site.
(10) POTENTIALITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OR RECRUITMENT
OP NUISANCE SPECIES IN THE DISPOSAL SITE (40 CFR §228.6[a][10])
EXISTING SITE
There are no known components in the dredged material, or consequences of its
disposal, which would result in nuisance fauna at the Existing Site. Previous
surveys at the Existing Site did not detect the development or recruitment of
nuisance species (DAMOS).
2-17
-------
ALTERNATIVE SITE
There are no known components in the dredged material, or consequence of
its disposal, which would attract or result in nuisance species at the
Alternative Site.
(11) EUSTENCZ AT OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY
TO THE SITE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT NATURAL OR
CULTURAL FEATURES OP HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE (40 CFR §228.6[a][11])
EXISTING SITE
The State of Maine Department of Archeology inventory of
cultural/historical resources for the Portland area, do not reporc any
resource in the immediate vicinity of che Existing Sice. Herman (1972) did
not report any historic shipwrecks in the area, nor did the bathymecric and
side-scan sonar surveys (conducted for the Disposal Area Monitoring System
[DAMOS] program in 1978) reveal any identifiable- features of historical
importance.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
No significant historical features are expected to exist at the Alternative
Site; however, to verify the presence or absence of significant natural and
cultural features, a predlsposal survey would be needed'
CONCLUSIONS
Alternatives considered in detail for the disposal of dredged material from
the Portland Harbor channel system are the Existing Site and the Alternative
Site (near the Wilkinson Basin). The considerations for final site
2-18
-------
designation, baaed' on the 11 specific site criteria (40 CFR S228.6), are
summarized in Table 2-2. Final designation of the Existing Site is proposed for
the following reasons:
o Dredged material from the ship channels in similar in grain size to natural
sediments in the central basin of the Existing Site; thus, sediment
suitability for fauna occurring in and around the site would not be altered
significantly. Sediments at the Alternative Site are finer-grained;
therefore, benthic ecology is more likely to be altered by disposal of
dredged material.
o No significantly adverse effects have been observed after recent dredged
material disposal at the Existing Site. Site-specific investigations
(NUSC/1EC, 1977 to 1980) have noted only slight, temporary changes in
benthic infaunal density and diversity, and concomitant localized changes
in demersal fish populations following dredged material disposal. Effects
of. dredged material disposal on the ecology at the Alternative Site are
unknown, but may be greater than those at the Existing Site.
o Dredged material disposal at the Existing Site causes temporary localized
shoaling within the site, but will not create a navigational hazard due to
water depth (40 to 65m). Probability of short dumping outside Existing
Site boundaries is slight due to its location and the navigation buoy
located at the center of the site. Because of the greater water depth at
the Alternative Site, localized shoaling would not be a navigational
problem. However, increased transit time to the Alternative Site would
increase the probability of emergency dumping on sensitive mid-Shelf
fishing grounds.
o At the Existing Site the impact of dredged material disposal on fisheries
in minimal and would consist of possible temporary changes in demersal
finfish availability within the site. There are no anticipated or observed
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF THE 11 SITE-SELECTION CRITERIA
AS APPLIED TO THE EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE SITES
CFK 228.6 Criterion
SxlsciP.g Sice
Alternative Sice
1. Geographical position, depch
of vacer, hottoo topography, and
distance from coast
I. Location In relation co breeding,
spawning, nursery, feeding, or
passage areas of living resources
In adult or juvenile phases
3. Location In relation co beaches
jnd other aaenlcy areas
i. Typea and quantities of wastes
proposed co be disposed of, and
proposed methods of release,
including methods of packing
the waste. If any
5. Feasibility of surveillance and
monitoring
*6. Dispersal, horizontal transport,
and vertical mixing characteristics
ot the area. Including prevailing
current direction and velocity,
If any
•7. Existence and effects of current
and previous discharges and dumping
In the area (Including cumulative
effects)
3. Interference with shipping,
fishing, recreation, olneral
extraction, desalination, fish
and shellfish culture, areas of
special scientific Importance, and
other legitimate uses of Che ocean
*9. The existing water quality and
ecology as determined by available
data trend assessment, or
baseline surveys
10. Potentiality for the development
or recruitment of nuisance species
in the disposal site
LI. Existence at or In clo«*
proximity co the sice of any
significant natural or cultural
features of historical Importance
S«« Figure 2-1; 6.3 ami offsnore;
39a to 6*n deep; rough. Irregular
rocky outcrops around a 600a by 600m
basin
Some occurrence of lobster algra-
clon on a seasonal basis through
the general region
6.3 nml froo shore; because of the
water depth and current directions,
dredged material is noc likely to
reach adjacent beaches
350,000 yd of cohesive material
(sand, silt, and clay) froo :he
channels and turning basin (last
project): no future projects
Identified; no packing, bottom dump
release from barge
CE provides an observer on each tug;
monitoring Is not a problem
settling, minimal horizontal
or vertical stratification; major
portion of aacertal will remain
within the sice
Effects are minor and restricted to
the sice; significant adverse
effects have noc been noced outside
the sice
No Interference Is expected
High vacer quality with sightly
elevated hydrocarbon concentrations;
Infaunal community has high vari-
ability, and eplfauna dominated by
suspension feeders attached co rocky
surfaces
The dredged aatarlal does not contain
material known to cause development or
recruitment of nuisance species
No known features exist at or near
che sice
See Figure 2-1; 21 nal offshore;
130m deep, flac mud-covered
bottom
No known breeding or spawning
grounds In the region
II nal from shore; because
of the water depth and distance
from shore, dredged
aaterlai is not likely to
reach adjacent beaches
Saae as Existing Site
CE could provide an observer;
monitoring Is more difficult
due to greater distance off-
shore and greater depch
Due to greater depth, more
mixing and dispersal Is
expected
No sediments have been dumped
In chls area
Saae as Existing Sice
No data, but presumed co be
same as Existing Site
Same as Existing Sice
Same as Existing Sice
' Criterion especially relevant co site selection
2-20
-------
adverse effects Co anadromous, pelagic, or lobster fisheries. The
possible loss of any existing feeding grounds would be insigificant in
comparison to the total feeding area available in the Gulf of Maine.
Impacts of dredged material disposal on potential fishery resources at
the Alternative Site are unknown but are considered to be similar to
those at the Existing Site.
Disposal would be significantly more cost effective at the Existing
Site than at the Alternative Site because of the greater transit
distance to the latter site.
The effects of dredged material disposal are known for the Existing
Site; surveillance and monitoring are significantly easier due to the
site's proximity to shore and the relatively shallow water depths. In
contrast, baseline data are unavailabe for the Alternative Site;
surveillance and monitoring would be more difficult due to greater
depths and distance from shore.
Therefore, in accordance with the Ocean Dumping Regulations, EPA proposes
that the Existing Portland Dredged Material Disposal Site receive final
designation.
RECOMMENDED USE OF THE SITE
All future uses of the Existing Site for ocean dumping, must comply with the
EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria. Dredged material from the Portland
Harbor Channel System will be dumped at the site if the material is determined to
be acceptable for ocean disposal. Use of the site will be managed by the CE to
minimize adverse impacts.
PERMISSIBLE'MATERIAL LOADINGS
Recent ongoing dredged material disposal at the Existing Site has caused
only localized mounding and minor impacts to the benthic fauna (described in
2-21
-------
Chapters 3 and 4). It is difficult: to assign an upper loading limit beyond
which significant adverse effects might occur. Additional dredging, with
volumes up to an additional 4 million yd over the next 10 years, would
probably also result in insignificant adverse impacts. If dredged material
volumes are substantially increased above historic volumes, the CE monitoring
effort should be intensified to identify and, if necessary, mitigate potential
adverse effects. The monitoring program would indicate whether disposal
volumes should be changed.
DISPOSAL METHODS
Material is dredged, transported by barge, and discharged at a specific
point within the disposal site. Present disposal methods practiced by the CE
at the Existing Site are acceptable for future dumping.
DISPOSAL SCHEDULE
Schedules of dredging and disposal operations are dependent only on che
availability of the dredge, tug, barge, and weather conditions. Historically,
the operational schedule has been conducted at any time, weather permitting.
This schedule can be continued, as it has been proven to be feasible.
MONITORING THE DISPOSAL SITS
Ocean Dumping Regulations establish that impacts of dumping in a disposal
site and surrounding marine environment may be evaluated periodically.
Information used in making the disposal impact evaluation may include data
from monitoring surveys. Thus, "if deemed necessary," the CE's District
Engineer (DE) and the EPA Regional Administrator (RA) may establish a
monitoring program to supplement historical site data. The DE and RA develop
the monitoring plan by determining appropriate monitoring parameters,
frequency of sampling, and areal extent of the survey. Factors considered in
making determinations include frequency of disposal, volumes of material to be
disposed of, physical and chemical natures of the dredged material, dynamics
of the site physical processes, and life histories of the monitored species.
2-22
-------
The primary purpose of the monicoring program is to determine whether
disposal at the site is significantly affecting areas outside the site, and to
detect long-term effects of disposal. The monitoring plan for the disposal
site is intended to ensure detection of long-term adverse impacts, especially
irreversible impacts and those which involve irretrievable loss of important
resources. Such impacts are assessed by comparing environmental conditions
before and after the onset of disposal operations, to detect any long-term
adverse alterations of the site. An effeptive monitoring program is based on
comprehensive predisposal environmental information and the predicted effects
of disposal activities. Consequently, the monitoring study must survey the
site and surrounding areas, including control sites and areas which are likely
to be affected (as indicated by environmental factors, such as prevailing
currents and sediment transport). Results of an adequate survey will provide
early indication of potential adverse effects outside the site.
GUIDELINES FOR THE MONITORING PLAN
Historically, no significant adverse effects from disposal at the Existing
Site have been observed. Monitoring requirements for the site are minimized
by the nature of the dredged material and its similarity to sediments in the
basin at the center of the disposal site. Many physical parameters will not
be affected significantly by disposal (e.g., temperature or salinity).
Physical parameters that show significant disposal variation (e.g., turbidity)
return quickly to ambient levels.
The CE District Engineer and EPA Regional Administrator may choose,
however, to monitor selected parameters in order to separate natural
environmental fluctuations from those caused by dredged material disposal.
Requirements for a monitoring plan for the Existing Site can be determined by
applying the following six considerations.
2-23
-------
MOVEMENT OF MATERIALS INTO ESTUARIES OR MARINE •
SANCTUARIES, OR ONTO OCEANFRONT BEACHES, OR SHORELINES
The nearest escuary is Presumpscot River, approximately 12 rani from the
Existing Site. Transport of dredged materials over significant distances is
unlikely, based on available ocean current data. Net transport of sediments
from the Existing Site will be in a northeasterly and southwesterly direction;
therefore, movement of materials onto local beaches (westerly) is unlikely.
MOVEMENT OF MATERIALS TOWARD PRODUCTIVE FISHERY OR SHELLFISHERY AREAS
Commercially important organisms in the vicinity of the Existing Site are
mobile and adapted to natural sediment movements. Portland Harbor dredged
material is similar to sediments at the site. If dumped material entered the
natural transport cycle, it would present minimal stresses to fisheries,
because it most likely would be transported into deeper waters. However, a
transect should be monitored in the direction of the fisheries grounds,
wherein CHC's and metals are measured in fisheries organisms (such as lobster
and quahogs) .
ABSENCE FROM THE DISPOSAL SITE OF
POLLUTION-SENSITIVE BIOTA CHARACTERISTIC OF THE GENERAL AREA
Although a major portion of material dredged from the Portland Harbor area
is fine sand, silt and clay in a low-energy environment and is generally not
excluded from furture testing under the specified exclusion criteria, on a
case by base basis, material from the area could qualify for an exclusion
depending on particular circumstances (e.g., glacial clays and tills from
deep improvement projects).
2-24
-------
PROGRESSIVE, NONSEASONAL, CHANGES IN
WATER QUALITY OR SEDIMENT COMPOSITION AT THE
DISPOSAL SITE, ATTRIBUTABLE TO DREDGED MATERIAL
Measurable changes in water quality due to dredged material disposal are
unlikely to occur or be detectable because of:
• Limited release of contaminants to the water column (because contami-
nants are usuallv bound for fine-grained sediments)
• Transient nature of water overlying the site
• Natural variability in water-column parameters
Sediments at the center of the Existing Site are now primarily dredged
materials from previous dumping and should not change significantly as a
result of continued disposal. However, in order to detect any transport of
dumped material outside the site, sediment geochemical parameters (e.g.,
levels of trace metals and CHC's) should be monitored at the site and along
transects of possible transport (i.e., northeast-southwest).
PROGRESSIVE, NONSEASONAL CHANGES IN COMPOSITION
OR NUMBERS OF PELAGIC, DEMERSAL, OR BENTHIC BIOTA AT
OR NEAR THE DISPOSAL SITE, ATTRIBUTABLE TO DREDGED MATERIAL
Benthic infauna and epifauna on rocky bottoms (particularly species that
are least resistant to dredged material effects) provide an effective index
for determining dredged material impacts. Survey transects should be
established along which organisms would be sampled twice a year. The transect
would cover the site, as well as areas upcurrent and downcurrent (northeast-
2-25
-------
southwest) from the site. The survey design will facilitate detection of any
biotic changes that extend past site boundaries. Species that could be con-
sidered for monitoring should be the dominants listed in Appendices A and 3.
ACCUMULATION OF MATERIAL CONSTITUENTS (INCLUDING
HUMAN PATHOGENS) IN MARINE. BIOTA AT OR NEAR THE SITE
Concentrations of trace metals and hydrocarbons in sediments at the
Existing Site are higher than levels from a nearby control area (IEC and SAI
data 1979, 1980). However, the Mussel Watch Program has revealed no
significant differences in water quality between the disposal site and the
same control site. Similarly, no significant accumulations of trace metals
have been detected in the tissues of crustaceans and other benthic inverte-
brates collected from the disposal site. As mentioned earlier, fisheries
species should be collected along transects toward known fishing grounds and
analyzed for CHC's and trace metals.
2-26
-------
Chapter 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS
This chapter describes the relevant environmental
characteristics of the Existing and Alternative Sites
evaluated in Chapter 2. Physical processes at both the
Existing Site and Alternative Site are influenced by tidal
and oceanic currents; sediment movement is influenced by
currents and internal waves. Sediments at the center of
the Existing Site are composed of silt, clay, and fine to
medium-grained sands; sediments in the Alternative Site
also contain relatively high percentages of silts and
clays. The Existing Site does not support a large, diverse
biological community or any commercially important species.
Relatively little is known about the indige'nous biological
community of the Alternative Site, and few commercial
species have been found in the area-
The shoreline north of Portland is known for its scenic beauty. The long
rocky peninsulas and many islands of massive rock ledge outcrops are covered
with a thin veneer of sediment and soil, and only a few miles of shoreline
have a natural beach or are composed of easily erodible material (CE, 1971).
The shoreline south of Portland contains most of Maine's recreational
beaches. It is estimated that only 30% of this region is rocky or of ledge
rock construction. Many of the beaches are crescent-shaped and situated
between projecting rocky headlands- In general, the beaches consist of
high-quality sand which is suitable for recreational activities. The State of
Maine has developed two State parks within the area: Crescent State Beach at
Cape Elizabeth, and Popham State Park at Phippsburg- Other popular public
beaches include York, Ogunquit, Wells, Kennebunk, and Old Orchard-
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
The Existing Site is 6.8 nmi off Cape Elizabeth, on the nearshore Shelf in
the western Gulf of Maine, in water depths of 40 to 65m- The Gulf is a broad
3-1
-------
depression on the Shelf between Cape Cod and Nova Scotia and is separated from
the open Atlantic Ocean by Georges Bank on the southeast and by the Scotian
Shelf on the northeast.
Environmental data for the Existing Site and adjacent nearshore waters have
been collected over the past 10 years, but information for the Alternative
Site is seriously limited.
METEOROLOGY
Climatic parameters of interest at an ODMDS are air temperature, rainfall,
winds, storm occurrences, and fog. Air temperature interacts with surface
waters and, particularly during warm periods, influences the vertical
stability of the water. Rainfall increases coastal freshwater runoff, thereby
decreasing surface salinity and intensifying the vertical stratification of
the water. Coastal runoff may also contribute suspended sediments and various
chemical pollutants. Winds and storms can generate waves and currents that
stir up and transport dredged material. A high incidence of fog during
particular seasons can affect navigational safety and limit disposal
operations•
The Appalachian Mountains to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east
have a significant influence on climate in the Portland area. This area lies
in the global zone of westerly winds and in the path of tropical air masses
moving up from the Gulf of Mexico. Interaction between northward-moving, warm
air masses from the south, and eastward-progressing continental air masses
from the west, often causes rapid climatic changes and major storms. The
climate is moderated substantially by the effects of the ocean and large bays
along the coast; air temperatures are generally colder in the inland areas.
Climatic data have been obtained from U.S. naval ships passing coastwise, as
well as across the Gulf of Maine; but these are far from being representative,
synoptic, or uniform.
3-2
-------
TEMPERATURE
Portland has an annual average temperature of. 7°-C, a mean daily maximum of
26.1°C, and a mean daily minimum of -11.3°C. Extremes range from a high of
39.4°C to a low of -39i4°C (National Weather Service, personal communi-
*
cation ).
Precipitation
Average annual precipitation is approximately 104 cm. Precipitation is
generally LO cm greater along the coast than in nearby inland areas.
Fluctuations in average precipitation are common, resulting in extreme high or
low streamflows. Periods of low precipitation, such as the droughts of the
1930s and the 1960s, can last for months or years over large areas.
Thunderstorms occur mainly during summer and on an average of 20 days per
year, with the coastal area receiving fewer than inland areas. On the
average, tornados occur once a year, predominantly in July. Fog is prevalent
along the coast of Maine. Thirty-year records at Portland show that heavy fog
(visibility <0.2 mile) occurs 52 days per year (U.S. Department of Commerce,
NOAA, irregular).
Wind
The average wind velocity is from 15 to 18.5 km/hr; winds from the west
dominate. In winter most winds emanate from the northwest and are associated
with the frequent inflows of polar air from the interior land masses of the
United States and Canada. These winds are frequently strong and usually are
attended by a dry air mass. Winds from the sea account for only 10% of the
winter winds in Maine, and these are dominated by the lower wind speeds- High
wind speeds come from every sector, however, as these are associated with
storm activity. High seas during wind-driven winter storms occasionally cause
serious damage to the coast.
* National Weather Service, Portland, Maine, 1981
3-3
-------
la soring winds at Portland come from the west (including che northwest -and
southwest) but the south winds increase in frequency due to the onset of sea
breeze conditions. By summer, south-winds clearly dominate, especially at the
stations closest to the shore. These winds, caused by well-developed sea breeze
conditions, transoort sea fogs and moisture inland. The occasional storm of
tropical origin in sumramer or fall may result in winds of near-hurricane force.
"all winds patterns resemble the annual average at Portland with western winds
dominating (refer and Schettin^, 1980).
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Physical oceanographic parameters determine the nature and extent of the
mixing zone, thereby influencing sediment transport and the chemical
environment at an ODMDS. Strong temperature or salinity gradients inhibit
mixing of surface and bottom waters, whereas waves aid mixing, resuspend
bottom sediments, and affect the turbidity of the water. Currents, especially
bottom currents, determine the direction and influence the extent of sediment
transport. Tidal currents may contribute to the transport of dumped material,
but usually do not add net directional effects.
WATER MASSES
Surface waters of the Gulf of Maine are distinctly coastal in nature, and
are colder and less saline than surface Slope Waters to the east. Coastal •
Water is formed largely by the mixing of (1) Slope Water entering from Georges
Bank, (2) water entering from over the Scotian Shelf through the Northeast
Channel, and (3) estuarine water from shore (TRIGOM, 1974), as shown in Figure
3-1. During summer, surface water from the Gulf Stream enters the region.
This water characteristically is warmer and more saline than Coastal Water
(Emery and Uchupi, 1972).
CURRENTS
General circulation in the Gulf of Maine has been described by Bigelow
(1927) and is summarized in Figure 3-1. A counterclockwise gyre is present in
3-4
-------
\ CANAD.A
.*
PORTLAND'
\
GULF OF MAINE
EDDY
GEORGES BANK
EDDY
Figure 3-1. Surface Currents Within Slope Water and Coastal Water Masses
Source: DOC, 1973
the Gulf and a clockwise gyre occurs over Georges Bank to the southeast* The
seasonal gyre system reaches maximum intensity in late May (Brown and
Beardsley, 1978).
Tidal forces are the main contributor to surface current speed and
direction in the Gulf of Maine; wind drift contributes little to current
development and speed (Brown and Beardsley, 1978). Maximum surface current
3-5
-------
speeds occasionally reach 45 cm/s, but mean speeds are approximately 15 cm/s
(Normandeau Associates, 1974). Near-bottom currents are affected by local
topography; maximum recorded speeds are 30 cm/s; mean speeds are approximately
12 cm/s (NUSC, 1977, 1979). Currents at the disposal site are primarily
rotary, with dominant directions to be north-northeast and south-southwest
(NUSC, 1979). Water mass transport during summer months is mainly coward the
north or east, and in winter, to either the northwest or southwest. Table 3-1
summarizes known current data near the Existing Site.
TEMPERATURE STRUCTURE
Surface water in the Gulf of Maine displays strong horizontal (onshore-
offshore) temperature gradients. An increase in temperature of 5° to 10°C has
been observed within 30 nmi, west to southeast (ICNAF, 1974). This gradient
is characteristic of the transition zone between Coastal and Slope Water-
Except during winter, when mixing with surface waters occurs, a distinct
region of cold ( < 5°C) water (from 100 to 150m depths) generally is observed
in the Gulf of Maine (ICNAF, 1974). Bottom waters (150 to 2.50m) in the Gulf
of Maine are slightly colder than midwaters.
Surface waters of the Gulf of Maine display the seasonal temperature
variations characteristic of northern temperate climates- The annual range in
surface water temperatures recorded at the Portland Lightship is from 2.8°C to
15.5°C, as shown in Figure 3-2 (Emery and Uchupi, 1972). During spring and
early summer increased insolation forms a stable layer of warm surface water,
extending down to depths of 10 to 40m- Below the thermocline bottom water
temperatures remain fairly constant and cold throughout the year. The
difference between surface and bottom water at the Portland Lightship is 0° to
8°C, as shown in Figure 3-3.
SALINITY STRUCTURE
Seasonal variations in salinity are minimal within the coastal waters of
the Gulf of Maine. As a result of coastal runoff and lower salinity coastal
water moving westward from Nova Scotia, salinities are low (compared to open
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-1
EXISTING CURRENT DATA COLLECTED NEAR THE EXISTING SITE
Investigator
Normandeau
(1974)
Normandeau
(1974)
NUSC (1978)
NUSC (1979)
WIIOI
(Vermersh,
1979)
WHO!
(Vcrmersh,
1979)
WHO I
(Vermursh,
1979)
Time
Period
May 18 to
Jun 12,
1974
Sep 24 to
Oct 22.
1974
Aug 5 to
Sep 26.
1978
Jan 12 to
Feb 17.
1977
Nov 21 to
Jan 9,
1975
Nov 21 to
Jan 9.
1975
Nov 21 to
Jan 9,
1975
Depth
Level
(°>)
*
1.5
12
27
40
**
1.5
15
19t
1T
33
68
98
33
68
118
190
33
68
98
Max imum
Speed
(cm/8)
8.32
25.5
10.4
15.6
45.0
31.2
28.1
30.0
28.0
23.0
28.5
20.0
37.5
25.0
13.5
-
28.0
-
-
Dominant
Direction
Avg Speed
(cm/a)
3.12
9.36
4.16
4.16
17.7
14.07
7.3
7.0
15.9
11.6
7.0
3.7
8.8
3.2
1.1
-
4.0
-
-
Max lonim
Direction
(to)
S
SW
S
S
F.
E
E
N
N to E
-
sw
NW
SU
SW
SE
-
SW
-
Dominant
Direction
(to)
N to S
NK to SW
S
S
E
N
E
NE
N to E
-
SU
NU
NW
NW
NW
-
NW
-
Number of
Stations
4 (1 depth ea.)
1 (3 depths)
1 (dt bottom)
1 (surface &
bottom)
3 (3 depths)
Wind
(from)
(m/s)
Mean: 4.4
Max: 10.4
Various
Mean: 0.04
Max: 10.4
North
N/A
N/A
Mean: 8.0
Max: 15.9
South
NUSC - Naval Undersea Systems Center
WIIOI • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
* 4 current meters, all approximately 1.5m above the seafloor
** 1 current meter, approximately 1.5m above the seafloor
t I current meter, approximately 1m above the seafloor
-------
oc
3
ce
iu
3.
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
J
M
M
J
N
Figure 3-2. Monthly Cycle of Surface Water Temperatures
Near Portland Lightship
Source: Adapted from Emery and Uchupi, 1972
10r
-2
M A M J )
N
Figure 3-3. Temperature Differential (°C) Between Surface
and Bottom Waters Near Portland Lightship
Source: Adapted from Emery and Uchupi, 1972
3-8
-------
ocean water) throughout most of the year, never rising higher than 33 /oo.
Lowest salinities (<31 /oo) generally occur near the surface during April,
May, and June, corresponding to the period of highest river runoff (Emery and
Uchupi, 1972).
During winter months at the Existing Site (November through March),
well-mixed water of nearly constant salinity (~32.5 /oo) extends to the
seafloor. With the formation of a seasonal thermocline in the spring, surface
salinities reflect riverine input, whereas midwater salinities remain
relatively constant (TRIGOM, 1974).
WAVES
Wave height distributions show that waves 1m or greater occur 40% af the
time, and waves greater than 7m occur only 0.10% of the time (Thompson and
Harris, 1972). The dominant direction is from the east and east-northeast.
Extremely large waves are infrequent because of the protection afforded to the
area by Georges Bank.
GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Geological information relevant to an ODMDS includes bathymetry, sediment
characteristics, and dredged material characteristics. Bathymetric data
provide information on bottom stability, persistence of sediment mounds, and
shoaling. Differences in sediment grain size distribution between natural
sediments and dredged material may be used as a tracer to determine the area
of bottom influence of the dredged material because sediment characteristics
strongly determine the composition of the resident benthic biota. Changes in
sediment size at the Existing Site (caused by disposal) could produce changes
in the composition of the benthic biota.
BATHYMETRY
The floor of the Gulf of Maine is extremely irregular, due in part to
outcrops of bedrock and to the occurrence of large boulders. Furthermore, the
Gulf is characterized by deep basins, low swales, ridges, and flat-topped
3-9
-------
banks and ledges- On the basis of data obtained from continuous seismic
profiling, Uchupi (1966) and Oldale and Uchupi (1970) suggested that the Gulf
of Maine probably was formed by a combination of preglacial fluvial erosion
and Pleistocene glacial erosion.
There is a transition zone separating the offshore and inshore areas,
ranging from 2 to 10 nmi offshore- Zonation may also be noted in the
distributions of flora and fauna within the area.
Surveys of the Existing Site (Figure 3-4) were conducted from L977 co 1980 bv
DAMOS, NUSC, SAI, and IEC. The Existing Site is extremely rugged due to many
large rock outcrops. Nowhere in the region is there a smooch bottom
(characteristic of areas receiving large amounts of sediment); however, numerous
Dockets of fine-grained sand and silt do exist. Side-scan sonar records across
the existing Site indicate a basin at the center, approximately 6GOm iouar? -in-d
OOrn deeo, surrounded by rocky outcroos rising to a deoch of iOm. This specific
basin wit'iin the Existing Site has been used as the ooi.it disposal Location '?DL)
for the dumping of dredged material. Other areas within the Existing Site
received dredged material 35 years ago.
SEDIMENTS
Georges Bank acted as a barrier or breakwater to the Gulf of Maine during
most of the Recent rise of sea level, thereby protecting the Gulf from much of
the reworking effects of waves, and allowing the deposition of fine-grained
sediments- The Gulf of Maine is a low-energy environment, as demonstrated by
the large quantity of relatively unstable and altered minerals, and poor
sediment sorting (Ross, 1970).
Surface sediments on the Continental Margin can be classified into two
groups: Recent (riverine and deepsea pelagic) sediments and relict (glacial)
sediments. This classification is based on analysis of the sand fraction and
on the depositional history of the sediments. The distribution of the
different sediment types is shown in Figure 3-5 (Ross, 1970).
3-10
-------
o
z
SITE
BOUNDARY
NO DETAILED DATA
POINT
DISPOSAL
AREA
H
Q
a
a -
O
r
NO DETAILED DATA
43'34.4'IW
43*341
43'33.7'IWN
70*W30*
70'02'00-
Figure 3-4. Bathymetry of the Existing Site (November 1978)
Source: SAI, 1980a
The seafloor at the Existing Site is predominantly rocky with several small
sediment-covered basins, such as the basin located at the center of the Site.
During EPA/IEC surveys (Appendix A), sand and silt/clay contents ranged from
11.7% to 75% and 18.2% and 88.3%, respectively. Sediments from the Existing
Site center generally contained less than 30% sand and up to 75% silt and
clay. Samples taken at an EPA/IEC control station, located 1.8 nmi southeast
3-11
-------
— 40'N
rr TO- w
AREAS OF MORE THAN ONE PATTERN INDICATE MIXED SOURCES OF SEDIMENT
RIVER SEDIMENTS
REWORKED GLACIAL SEDIMENTS
RELATIVELY UNWORKED GLACIAL SEDIMENTS
REWORKED COASTAL PLAIN SEDIMENTS
64'W
• SAMPLE LOCATION
Figure 3-5. Bottom Sediments on the Continental Margin
Source: Ross, 1970
of the center of the Existing Site, contained sediments of varying texture. A
sediment sample collected 0.5 rani northwest of the center, however, was very
coarse and contained almost no silt or clay. These variations suggest that
the sediment distribution is extremely patchy in this part of the Gulf of
Maine•
3-12
-------
SEDIMENT TRANSPOR:
Transport of sediments depends on particle size and density, as well as the
speed and direction of bottom water movements. For sediments with densities
similar to quartz, relationships between grain sizes and the velocities
necessary to erode and transport are reasonably well known. Table 3-2 gives
some representative values.
Bottom currents near the Existing Site (Table 3-1) may attain velocities of 20
cm/sec, which would not erode the silts, sands and transport then out of the
area. There is- insufficient information to make a reasonable estimate of the
quantities or tates of sediment transport.
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
WATER COLUMN
The chemical parameters pertinent to evaluation of an ODMDS include nutrients
important to phytoplankton growth (e.g., nitrate and phosphate), dissolved and
oarticulate trace metals (e.g., Cd, Hg, and Pb), and hydrocarbons (e.?., PCB,
TABLE 3-2
REPRESENTATIVE EROSION AND
TRANSPORT VELOCITY THRESHOLDS FOR QUARTZ SEDIMENTS
Sediment
Size
Class
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Sediment
Size Range
(mm)
<2
0.0625 to 2
0.0039 to 0.0625
Minimum
Erosion
Threshold
Speed
(cm/s)
40
25
20
*
Minimum
Transport
Threshold
Speed
( cm/ s )
15
0.5
0.1
* Assumes material suspended by processes other than water flow
Source: After Hjulstrom, 1939
3-13
-------
DDT, and phenol). Potential impacts depend on the concentrations of constituents
released from dredged material, and physical factors such, as mixing and dilution
rates; however, because of the transient nature of wacer masses, adverse effects
are expected to be minor.
Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen
Nutrients and dissolved oxygen levels in xhe coastal waters of the Gulf of
Maine display marked seasonal variations typical of midlatitude waters. A
spring phytoplankton bloom occurs in late March, in response to high levels of
nutrients and increasing light levels. Throughout the bloom there is a rapid
removal of nitrate, 'phosphate, and silicate from surface watars in the photic
zone (Riley and Chester, 1971). Periodic mixing in the spring (caused by
storms) replenishes the nutrients and allows continued growth. However,
increasing insolation warms the surface waters, and a strong thermocline is
established between 10 and 40m by early summer. The thennocline inhibits
vertical mixing and, hence, nutrient inputs to surface waters. In che fall
and winter the combined effect of storms and the cooling of surface water
breaks down the thermal stratification established in summer and allows
mixing. Winter mixing, which can extend to about 150m in the Gulf of Maine,
returns nutrients to surface waters from the nutrient-rich bottom waters.
Surface waters are 90% to 100% saturated with dissolved oxygen in winter
because of turbu-lence from storms. Oxygen levels in the warm surface waters
of summer are somewhat lower than in winter, but remain near saturation as a
result of oxygen released during photosynthesis. The decomposition of sinking
organic debris tends to reduce oxygen levels in bottom waters to below
saturation. Winter mixing replenishes dissolved oxygen to bottom waters
(Riley and Chester, 1971).
Suspended Solids and Turbidity
Suspended solids off the coast of Maine consist of both inorganic and
organic components. Concentrations of both components decrease in a seaward
direction, whereas the relative amount of organic material incorporated in the
3-14
-------
suspended sediment increases (Emery and Uchupi, 1972). Inorganic components
are composed of: (1) feldspar, quartz, mica, and clay, (2) pollutants, and
(3) iron oxide aggregates (floes) formed by reaction of iron-rich effluents
from coastal marshes and estuaries. Organic material from biological
productivity consists primarily of aggregates and partially organic siliceous
and calcareous skeletal debris (Emery and Uchupi, 1972). The recent EPA/IEC
survey at the Existing Site showed low levels of suspended particulate matter
(0.14 to 0.75 mg/liter) and no consistent vertical distribution (Appendix A).
Trace Metals
Trace elements are present in varying amounts in coast'al'" waters. The most
important pathways by which trace elements reach the ocean are: (1) land
runoff, (2) atmospheric fallout, and (3) direct inputs by man. Trace elements
are generally removed from the dissolved state by adsorption on suspended
matter, and slowly deposited on the ocean floor. Resuspension of bottom
sediments by burrowing animals, storm action, or bottom currents may
reintroduce crace elements into the base of the water column.
Concentrations of lead, mercury, and cadmium, measured in June 1979
(Appendix A) in the water at the Existing Site (Table 3-3) were low (<0.1
ug/liter) and comparable to levels measured elsewhere in the Gulf of Maine
(ERGO, 1978). No information is available for waters within the Alternative
Site, but the values are not expected to be significantly different.
Organic Matter
Little is known about the chemistry of organic matter in the Gulf of Maine;
however, it is assumed to be composed of particulate and dissolved material
from biological sources (seagrasses, algae, zooplankton) and anthropogenic
inputs (industrial, municipal, and agricultural runoff). Dissolved organic
3-15
-------
TABLE 3-3
DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE TRACE METALS
Station 1
(disposal site)
Station 6
(control)
Particulate (ug/liter)
Hg
0.001
0.001
Pb
0.045
0.044
Cd
0.065
0.073
Dissolved (jig/liter)
Hg
0.03
0.003
Pb
0.11
0.14
Cd
0.061
0.11
carbon (DOC) levels in the Golf of Maine are highest near the surface (80 co
120 ug-at C/liter), then uniform from a depth of 50m co the bottom (50 to 70
ug-at C/liter) (TRIGOM, 1974). Increased particulate organic carbon (?CC)
levels are associated with phytoplankton blooms (Emery and Uchupi, 1972).
Dissolved hydrocarbons in Georges Bank seawater ranged from 10 to
100 ug/liter; levels in surface and bottom water did not differ significantly
(ERCO, 1978). Detailed analysis revealed that 60% to 80% of the hydrocarbons
were weathered No. 2 fuel oil or other fossil fuels, indicating a considerable
anthropogenic input (ERCO, 1978).
Chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHC's) are ubiquitous anthropogenic contaminants
in the marine environment. Water at the Existing Site is relatively free of
dissolved CHC's, with only traces of the pesticide dieldrin measured
(Appendix A).
SEDIMENTS
A variety of trace constituents, such as trace metals, petroleum and
chlorinated hydrocarbons, and other organic materials (commonly expressed as
total organic carbon [TOC]) can accumulate in sediments. Elevated levels of
3-16
-------
marine sediment contaminants are generally the result of anthropogenic inputs,
such as municipal and industrial wastes, urban and agricultural runoff,
atmospheric fallout from urban centers, and accidental spillage.
Sediments high in silts and clays have a greater absorptive capacity for
trace contaminants and typically have higher TOG levels than coarser material.
Accumulation of trace elements and chlorinated and petroleum hydrocarbons in
sediments may have short- or long-term negative effects on marine organisms.
Many benthic organisms are nonselective deposit feede-rs that ingest
substantial quantities of suspended and bottom sediments- The potential for
bioaccumulation of trace contaminants (e.g., mercury, cadmium, lead, and some
chlorinated hydrocarbons) by these organisms is an important environmental
concern, especially if transmission to humans is possible.
High concentrations of organic materials in sediments could lead to anoxic
conditions and produce hydrogen sulfide and metal sulfides. Oxidation of
these sulfides is responsible for much of the initial consumption of oxygen
immediately following dredged material disposal. Significantly lowered oxygen
levels in sediments or near-bottom waters can adversely affect marine
organisms.
Contaminant levels in -fine sediments from the Point Disposal Location (PDL)
near the center of the Existing Site were much higher than levels from Station
7 outside the Existing Site with similar sediments- Concentrations for some
parameters (e.g., oil and grease) were similiar to Portland Harbor sediments
while other parameters (e.g., trace metals) had lower concentrations at the
Existing Site than in Portland Harbor sediments (see Appendix A for details).
CONTAMINANTS IN BIOTA
Data on tissue concentrations of trace metals and organic pollutants (e.g.,
pesticides, PCB's) are unavailable for phytoplankton and zooplankton
populations near the Existing Site- Trace metal concentrations have been
3-17
-------
examined in some benthic species, but levels of organic pollutants in these
species are unknown. Data indicate that no significanc uptake of trace metals
is occurring and there is no apparant danger to human health.
DAMOS initiated a Mussel Watch Program thac monitored the uptake of trace
fnetals by mussels at Bulwark Shoals (control area) on Vest Cod Ledge (Figure 2-1)
and at the Existing Site. This program was designed to provide baseline tissue
levels of trace metals prior to disposal activities. Mussels (Modiolus modiolu_s)
were collected monthly from each area and the sole tissues were analyzed.
Results indie-ate that in all cases the values from mussels in the disposal sice
were slightly higher than those from the control area (Table 3-4).
Trace rnetal concentrations in benthic animals within the Existing Site wee-;
neasured by DAMOS. Tissue levels of mercurv, cadmium, cooper, Lead, and '. i .10
were examined in Card ium so. and Astarte so. (both clams), and Tere_h>racul ina
septentrionolis (brachiopod). During EPA/IEC surveys crustaceans wera collected
from the Existing Site and their tissues were analyzed for accumulations of
mercury, cadmium, and lead (Appendix A). Mercury levels in the crustacean
tissues were nearly two orders of magnitude lower than the FDA Action level. NO
Action levels have been established for trace metals other than mercury in marine
t issues.
TABLE 3-4
TRACE METAL ACCUMULATION IN MUSSEL TISSUE
(Modiolus aiodiolus) FROM BULWARK SHOALS CONTROL AREA AND THE EXISTING SITE
mean (ug/») dry weight
Area
Bulwark Shoals
Disposal Sice
Number of
Individuals
19
6
Cd
9.07
12.50
Cr
0.78
0.98
Co
0.40
0.62
Cu
31.00
33.58
re
124.82
156.02
Hg
0.23
0.28
Ni
2.15
2.85
Zn
258.92
270.63
Source: Modified from SAI, 1980
3-18
-------
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Biota in the water column and in benthic environments of the Existing Site
are described in this section. Water column biota include phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and nekton; benthic biota include infaunal and epifaunal
organisms and demersal fish. Benthic biota, especially the infauna, can be
sedentary, and may not be able to readily emigrate from areas of disturbance.
Infauna, therefore, are important indicators of environmental conditions.
Dredged material disposal causes only short-term effects on planktonic
communities because of the natural patchiness of the species and the movement
of the water masses they inhabit. Nekton are highly mobile and normally are
unaffected by disposal of dredged material.
PHYTOPLANKTON
Diatoms and dinoflagellates are the major types of phytoplankton within the
coastal areas of the Gulf of Maine, and their population dynamics are closely
correlated with the annual cycles of nutrients and light energy.- Phyto-
plankton' populations begin to increase in early spring, as they utilize the
increasing levels of light and the high concentrations of nutrients in the
water column resulting from winter mixing. Within the Gulf of Maine the
spring bloom begins in the coastal area off Cape Elizabeth, which includes the
Existing Site (TRIGOM, 1974; BLM, 1977). The boreal diatom Thalassiosira sp.
begins to increase in late March and is the first dominant, followed by
Chaetocerus debilis and £. decipiers. Populations decline from late April or
early May until a second, but much smaller, phytoplankton increase occurs
during July through August (at Cape Elizabeth). The late summer increase
results from storm-induced breakdowns of water stratification, with subsequent
introduction of nutrients into the surface waters; sufficient light is still
available to support a phytoplankton bloom. The latter bloom usually involves
the neritic diatoms Skeletonema, Guinardia, Leptocylindrus, and Rhizosolenia.
The phytoplankton populations progressively decrease as light levels decrease,
and minimal levels are reached in winter. The small winter populations
generally are dominated by the dinoflagellate Ceratium or the diatom
Coscinodiscus, and sometimes by the diatoms Rhizosolenia or Thalassiosira
(TRIGOM, 1974; BLM, 1977).
3-19
-------
Primary productivity in the region surrounding the Existing and Alternative
Sites is highest during the spring blooms. Emery and Uchupi (1972) estimated
2
productivity values of over 0.5 g C/m /day for coastal waters of the Gulf of
Maine.
ZOOPLANKTON
Population cycles of zooplankton often are closely correlated with the
seasonal cycles of phytoplankton, since many zooplankters utilize the phyto-
plankton as food. These herbivorous zooplankters fora the second trophic
level of the marine food chain, and in turn may be fed upon by predatory
zooplankton and nekton which form higher trophic levels- At the Existing Site
zooplankton begin to increase in late March and are dominated by copepods
(Bigelow, 1927; Sherman, L963, 1970; TRIGOM, 1974; 3LM, 1977). The
herbivorous Calanus finmarchicus is the most abundant species of copepod, wich
populations increasing co a peak in May, then declining. Pseudocalar.us
minatus and Centropages typicus, also herbivorous, follow in June. Other
important planktonic species in this area include the herbivorous and
predatory copepods Oithona similis , Temora longicomis, Metridia lucens ,
Acartia longiremis, and Tortanus discaudatus and the predatory chaetognat'n
Sagitta elegans. Mean annual volumes of zooplankton near the Existing and
Alternative Sites (4 cc/100m ) are intermediate between high values recorded
from the western Gulf of Maine and low values from the eastern Gulf (Sherman,
1970).
NEKTON
As a group nekton occupy most levels of the marine food chain. For
example, herring and menhaden occupy the second trophic level as they feed on
phytoplankton. Predatory fishes, squid, and marine mammals comprise the
higher trophic levels.
Many nektonic species are vertical migrators, moving into shallower waters
(<200m) only at night. Some species, such as the boreal squid Illex
3-20
-------
illecebrosus, move into shallow waters on a seasonal basis- This commonly
occurring species ranges into the inshore area of the Gulf of Maine during
spring and summer and returns to offshore areas in fall (Gosner, 1971).
Numerous species of demersal and pelagic fishes are associated with the
Gulf of Maine coastal areas and are present to some degree at the Existing
Site. A list of the common species and their general distribution is
presented in Table 3-5. Most of these fishes (77%) are demersal, feeding
predominantly on bottom organisms such as polychaetes, molluscs, and small
crustaceans•
Some fish species migrate seasonally (BLM, 1977). Fishes moving north into
the Gulf of Maine and beyond during summer and returning south in the fall
include: spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) , silver hake (Merluccius
bilinearis), red hake (Urophycis chuss) , white hake (£• tenuis), American shad
(Alosa sapidissima), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), butterfish (Poronotus
triacanthus), and Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)• A few species,
such as the Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) and Atlantic cod (Gadus
morhua), migrate south from the Gulf of Maine before winter. Other species
display seasonal onshore-offshore movements within the Gulf.
It is difficult to determine accurately the types and abundances of
demersal fishes occurring within the Existing Site, as the area is charac-
terized by rugged bathymetry, and it is hazardous to employ trawling gear.
However, Normandeau Associates (1974) conducted a 30-minute trawl in a
relatively level area 0.5 nmi from the Existing Site. Several Atlantic cod
(Gadus morhua), American plaice (Hjppoglossoides platessoides), goosefish
(Lophius americanus), and yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) were
collected. It is reasonable to assume that most of the common Gulf of Maine
fishes (including commercial species) are present to some degree within the
Existing Site (Table 3-5).
Little is known about the demersal fishes associated with the Alternative
Site, but many of the common Gulf of Maine fishes can be expected to occur. A
survey conducted by NOAA (1976a,b) 5 nmi northeast of the Alternative Site
3-21
-------
TABLE 3-5
FISH SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE
NORTHERN COASTAL AREA OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC
TTP.'
3,C
C
S
s.c
-
s
s
s
5.C
C
C
s.c
Coawo Nam
Spiny dogfish
Little ikate
Saradoor skate
'•flater ikate
aiueback herring
rUckory ihad
Alevife
Atlantic aenhadeo
Capvlin
Gooee flab
Haddock
Sliver nan*
Atlantic :oacod
led ha ke
r
Striped baas
Blueflsh
Scup
"auto;
Inakeblenny
Daubed » nanny
lad laced ihanny
Atlantic volfflih
American isod lance
Atlantic Backer el
Buccerfleh
Sort hern tearoblo
S«a rav«Q
Crubby
Long horn seulpin
Shorthorn sculplo
Aillgatorfish
Luapf Ish
Four s pot flounder
Vtndovpane
Hitch flounder
Aoerlcan plaice
Tellovcall flounder
S*ooo th flounder
Winter flounder
Scientific Name
R. Isevls
Alosa «estl veils
A. aedloerla
Mai lotus vil losus
M'.:ro?adua comcod
,,=?n/c1?. «ta..
s
'J Lvarta *ubblf urcjca
Anarhlchas lupus
Aeaodyces aoerlcanus
Scoaber jcoabnis
Prlonocua carollnus
Heal t ripe a rue teeflcanua
Aapldophoroldes aonoeteryttlus
Cyeloptirua luaous
Psralichthrs obloegus
Scophthalaua ajuosus
Clyptoctphalua cyno^lossua
Hlppotlosaoidse plateesoldes
Llaanda ferruglaea
Llopsetta putnaaU
Paeudooleuroneecee anrlcaoue
^t,.,'
?
D
3
3
D
3
9
f
0
3
;,
p
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
?
P
D
a
v
D
3
0
0
D
3
3
3
3
a
3
0
3t«cribucLOQ
S..r.hor. -.0 off.hoc.
Nearghore to offshore
Ne art no re co offshore
Hearshore to offshore
Estuaclae Co coastal
C.....I
*»"»'• » •»"-«
.-,.„.»« :o «.„..
_
_
,
,
^ear shore co offshore
Cffshore. basin
Kearshore co coastal, basin
* ho 1 b k {*
Searthore co offshore
M*arshore. edges of banks
Coastal co offshore
'tearshora ;o offshore
Sear shore co baoka, baain co oceanic
Sear shore co offshore
Mearshore co offshore
£atuarlae co coaatal. banks co offshore
Kear shore co coaatal
Coaetal. banks, basin
Mearshore co coastal
&anJLa, coastal co offshore
Searihore eo coaatal
Coaatal co oceanic, bank*, bealn
Coaatal* banks, baa to, oceanic
Coastal to offshore, banks
Catuarlne to nearsnore
Zstuarina, banks co offshore
' Nearsnore - Coastline co I3v
Coastal • Out CO 91a
Offshors; - ?la to the Contlceotal 31op«
Sasln • 0«ep b*slo of the Culf of Halne
Sanke - Shallow, offsftor* banks
Oceanic • Pelagic flab of open ocaao habitat
• P - Pelagic
C • Coeaurelally Important
0 • Demersal
3 • Spertflah
Sources! Adapted fro* Slgelov and Schroed.r. 1933; TUICOM, 1974; BUI, 1977; fefer aad Schettlg. I960
3-22
-------
revealed moderate abundances of witch flounder, but other species were absent
or uncommon. Moderate amounts of American plaice, red and white hake, and cod
were collected 11 nmi from the Alternative Site (NOAA, 1976a,b).
BENTHOS
The disposal site is within the Western Atlantic Boreal Province, ranging
from northern Massachusetts and New Hampshire to Maine. Several studies have
documented the high species richness of this province. Tne distributions of
species are disjunct and discontinuous.
Numerous investigators have discussed the relationships between substrate
type and biological communities (e.g., Nichols, 1970; Gray, 1974; Rhoads,
1974). The highly variable nature of bottom types within the Gulf of Maine
has a major effect on the distribution and abundance of the various species-
This geological diversity, along with temporal changes, probably accounts for
the high sample-to-sample variability and clumped spatial distributions of
species observed in past studies of the Gulf of Maine and the Existing Site.
Coastal Maine has been characterized by Fefer and Schettig (1980), who
divided it into six coastal regions for organizational purposes (Figure 3-6).
The Existing Site lies within Region 1. In general, the infauna and epifauna
in this region are similar to those present throughout the Gulf of Maine and
the Western Atlantic Boreal Province. The number of species in Region 1,
however, is the lowest of all regions (Larson, 1979).
The Existing Site is situated within an area of rugged, rocky outcrops
interspersed with a few local sedimentary basins. The Point Disposal Location
2
is within the largest of these basins; it has an area of 0.11 nmi and a water
depth of 62m. Surrounding rocky outcrops rise to a depth of 40m (i.e., 20m
high) (Figure 3-4). Within this basin, sediments consist of fine sand, silt,
and clay, and bottom currents are weak, both features indicative of a
low-energy environment (PAMOS).
The communities on bottoms composed of fine-grained, soft sediment near the
Existing Site tend to be diverse and dominated by polychaetes and molluscs
3-23
-------
CJ
K)
PRESUMPSCOT
RIVER
so
Kilometers
N«ulicil Miles
25
H
Kl (.ION COVERING EXISTING Mil
Figure 3-6. Maine Coast Characterization by Region
Source: Fefer and Schettig, 1980
-------
(DAMOS). Basin slopes and sediment pockets among rocky outcrops often contain
organisms attached directly to rock as well as buried within the sediment. These
communities are somewhat less diverse and contain fewer numbers of polychaetes
than the fine sediment communities.
The infauna communities at the Existing Site are dominated by polychaetes
(Table 3-6); molluscs and crustaceans are relatively unimportant. The species
composition of the infauna communities reflects the substrate patchiness and
temporal heterogeneity of the site. Sample-to-sample variability was very
high, and only three dominant species • were common to both EPA/IEC surveys
(Appendix A).
The high degree of natural variability of the infauna communities observed
within the Existing Site is consistent-with other investigations in the Boreal
Province. Long-term studies have revealed high variability among the benthic
fauna in the southern portion of the Province (Harris and Mathieson, 1977).
Samples taken throughout the province usually fail to reveal consistent
*
patterns of species distribution (R. Morton, personal communication )•
TABLE 3-6
DOMINANT POLYCHAETE SPECIES PRESENT
AT THE EXISTING SITE IN JUNE 1979 AND APRIL 1980
Ampharete artica
Anobothrus gracilis
Arcidea quadrilobata
Paraonis gracilis
Prionospio malmgreni
Note: Other species (molluscs, crustaceans, etc.)
were not considered dominant (Appendix A)
* R. Morton, Science Applications Inc. (SAI), 1980
3-25
-------
Rocky outcrops are suitable for epifaunal communities dominated by attached
suspension feeders and mobile predators. Rocky areas are difficult to
sample,which may account for the low species diversity reported for rocky
outcrops in past investigations.
Epifaunal communities were examined using remote-controlled cameras and are
discussed in detail in Appendix B. The epifauna community associated with
rocky surfaces was dominated by attached suspension feeders. Photographs
reveal that brachiopods (Terebratulina septentrionalis) and the solitary
sponge (Polymastia infrapilosa) were the most abundant organisms, both
occurred in nearly all photos of rocky areas. Barnacles (Balanus balanus) and
several species of encrusting and erect sponges were common on rock surfaces
with little or no sediment, as were tunicates (Ascidia callosa) and
unidentified clumps of bryozoans and/or hydroids- A faw anemones tv-ere present
and tubicolous polychaetes were noted within isolated sediment pockets-
Mobile organisms were uncommon. A few asteroids, ophiuroids, small crabs,
shrimp, holochuroids, and urchins were noted. Large crustaceans and benthic
fishes were not observed.
Evidence of recent and extensive sediment deposition, most likely due to
dumping, was found at four of the eight photo stations, with two areas
characterized by an almost complete absence of life. Patterns of sedimen-
tation and associated fauna are discussed further in Appendix B.
MARINE MAMMALS
Cetaceans
Numerous species of cetaceans have been observed in the Gulf of Maine, but
only five species are common within the inshore and coastal waters
(Table 3-7). Coastal abundances appear to be greatest during spring and
summer; however, this may not be an accurate assessment, as little data have
been collected during winter (BLM, L977). The importance of the Gulf region
3-26
-------
TABLE 3-7
CETACEANS COMMONLY OBSERVED IN THE GULF OF MAINE
Species
Phocoena phocoena
Balaenopterra physalus
B_. acutorostrata
Megaptera novaengliae
Globicephala melaena
Common Name
Harbor porpoise
Finback whale
Minke whale
Humpback whale
Pilot whale
Source: BLM, 1977
to cetaceans is unknown. Offshore areas may serve as a migratory passage
between northern feeding grounds and southern breeding grounds, or as feeding
areas (TRIGOM, 1974; Fefer and Schettig, 1980).
Feeding habits of the common whales are fairly well known (BLM, 1977; Fefer
and Schettig, 1980). Baleen whales filter small food items from the water
using a variety of techniques. The humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and the
finback (Balaenoptera physalus) whales feed on herring or capelin- The minke
whale (B_. acutorostrata) feeds on herring, sand-lance, cod, and squid- The
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and the pilot whale (Globicephala melaena)
are toothed and capture individual herring and squid, respectively. The pilot
whale tends to follow the seasonal migrations of squid (i.e., inshore during
the spring and offshore in fall) (Sergeant and Fisher, 1957).
Pinnipeds
Five species of pinnipeds have been recorded from the Gulf of Maine;
however, only harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are common.
Approximately six harbor seals/nmi were counted within the 4m to 20m depth
interval between Cape Elizabeth and Cape Small, a zone 6 nmi inshore of the
Existing Site (TRIGOM, 1974). Harbor seals generally inhabit inlets, islets,
and reefs, where they form small, isolated populations. Mixing between the
populations is limited. During winter harbor seals move offshore and rarely
3-27
-------
haul ouc onto land. They recurn to the nearshore area in spring. Pupping
occurs on relatively protected beache's during May. Harbor seals generally eat
one fish meal each day (Boulva and McLaren, 1979).
Gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) are uncommon in the Gulf of Maine, although
scattered individuals occur near the Existing Site during the spring and
summer (Waters, L967; Andrews and Mott, 1967). The only breeding colony in
the U.S. consists of about 15 individuals on the shoals around Muskeget Island
near Nantucket (Andrews and Mott, 1967), 122 nmi south of the Existing Site
and 100 nmi south of the Alternative Site. Probably fewer than 30 seals exist
there (Fefer and Schettig, 1980).
The normal distribution of harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus), hooded
seals (Crystophora cristata), and walruses (Odobenus rosmarus) is far to the
north and they rarely occur in the Gulf of Maine.
RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
More than 20 species of marine mammals occur in the North Atlantic, of
which six species (all whales) are classified as endangered- These species
occur within the Gulf of Maine, and at least two may be expected to occur near
the Existing Site- The finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) is the most
common of all the large whales in this region and is sighted frequently within
inshore waters and bays- The humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and sei (3_.
borealis) whales routinely are observed, the humpback often within the
nearshore waters during summer and the sei further offshore. The blue (B_.
musculus), right (Eubaleana glacialis), and sperm (Physeter catadon) whales
occur mainly in deeper waters and are rarely observed.
The southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is the only endangered
bird species occurring along the coast of Maine. According to Fefer and
Schettig (1980), bald eagles nesting in Maine represent more than 90% of the
known eagle population breeding in the northeastern U.S. Approximately 75% of
Maine's breeding and wintering populations occur along the coast, and more
than half of these eagles occur in eastern Coastal Maine (Regions 5 and 6)
(Figure 3-6). No occupied breeding sites are known to exist in the vicinity of
3-28
-------
the Existing Site (Region 1) since State nesting surveys began in 1962. This
area receives only light and variable use by wintering eagles (Fefer and
Schettig, 1980).
There are five species of sea turtles known to be summer residents of the
Gulf of Maine; all may occur near the Existing Site. Three of these species
are endangered: the Atlantic ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), the leatherback
(Dermochelys coriacea), and the hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) • The
ridley wanders widely from nearshore to offshore waters. They occur in the
Gulf of Maine from July to November only as juveniles that have drifted north
in the Gulf Stream and then into the Gulf of Maine. After maturing they are
able to swim against the current and return south- The leatherback
occasionally enters shallow bays and estuaries and large populations occur in
the Gulf of Maine from June to November. The hawksbill is an occasional
straggler from southern areas. None of these rare and endangered species are
restricted to the Existing Site, although most may be expected to pass through
the area at some time-
PRESENT AND POTENTIAL
ACTIVITIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE EXISTING SITE
FISHERIES
The Gulf of Maine supports a significant commercial fishery for finfish and
shellfish. Nearly 30% of the total New England commercial catch is landed in
Maine, second only to Massachusetts in total fish landed (Fefer and Schettig,
1980). Maine's commercial catch is dominated by lobster, followed by shrimp,
ocean perch, Atlantic herring, and sea scallops.
Commercial fishing in Maine essentially is confined to inshore fishing
grounds, with less than 1% of the catch (dollars and pounds) from offshore
Georges Bank (DOI, 1977). The Portland fishing fleet operates almost
exclusively within the Gulf of Maine. During 1974 and 1975 this fleet
consisted of 72 trawlers, 19 concentrating on shrimp (DOI, 1977).
3-29
-------
Dragging or trawling grounds for demersal species are restricted to
continuous stretches of relatively smooth bottom. Although dragging
operations are not conducted at the Existing Site because of the rugged
topography, several nearby bottoms are important dragging grounds (Figure
3-7). The Edge of the Bottom, the primary dragging ground for Portland-based
fisherman., is 1.5 nmi southeast of the Existing Site. As many as 25 vessels
may fish this region (DAMOS). Hue and Cry Gulley is an important dragging ground
4 nrni southwest of Che Existing Site. Others areas include Eagle Island Narrows,
Ordnance Tow, and Second Edge. The finfish catch from these areas includes
Atlantic cod Gadus m££hua_) , haddock (Melanogrannnus aeg 1 efinis) , winter flounder
(Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), and other ground fish (Figure 3-7).
The 10 most valuable finfish species landed at Portland in 1974 and 1975
ars listed in Table 3-8. Atlantic herring was the dominant catch, and lobster
was the most valuable. Approximately half of these species are demersal, and
several probably range from the dragging grounds into the Existing Site even
though the depths and substrates are quite different. Gill nets are set in
areas south and southwest of the Existing Site.
Life histories of the nore important commercial finfish are summarized
briefly in 'Table 3-9. Most of these species produce pelagic eggs at spawning
areas far offshore of the Existing Site. The silver hake (Merluccius
bilinearis), however, spawns within a broad, nearshore spawning area extending
from Cape Cod to the Bay of Fundy (DAMOS); this area includes the Existing Site.
The Atlantic herring (Cluoea harengus) spawns demersal eggs, which are deposited
in nearshore gravels, but the CE has been assured by Department of Marine
Resources Laboratory at Booth Bay, Maine that "the proposed site is the best
choice in the immediate area, because both further up and down the coast are know
herring spawning grounds" (CE, 1979).
The lobster fishery is extremely valuable in Maine, worth $23.2 and $27.5
million in 1974 and 1975, respectively. Lobsters begin to migrate from cold,
offshore waters toward shallower and warmer waters in late spring. Conse-
quently, most fishing efforts begin in water less than 70m deep and are
3-30
-------
43*35'
£i££j SHRIMP
POLLOCK, COO
Figure 3-7,
TO'WW
SitpS^ POLLOCK, HUB
COD, HADDOCK, POLLOCK, CUSK, DAt; CRAY SOLE
Fisheries in the Vicinity of the Existing Site
Source: NUSC, 1979
3-31
-------
TABLE 3-8
MARINE LANDINGS INTO PORTLAND HARBOR FOR 1974 AND 1975
Flnflsh (1974)
Species
Ocean perch
Atlantic herring
Atlantic cod
Pollock
White hake
Silver hake
Atlantic menhaden
Witch flounder
Blue fin tuna
American plaice
Dollar Value
(Thousands)
2,327
1,793
541
328
266
175
155
144
135
124
Pounds
(Thousands)
30,626
47,398
4004
3,594
3,777
2,861
10,149
574
239
722
Shellfish (1974)
American lobster
Shrimp
Sea scallops
Sea mussels
23,213
3,463
723
83
16,458
9,768
455
308
Finfish (1975)
Species
Ocean perch
Atlantic herring
Atlantic cod
Pollock
White hake
Haddock
Witch flounder
American plaice
Sword fish
Atlantic menhaden
Dollar Value
(Thousands)
1,979
1,423
911
547
365
276
258
243
198
196
Pounds
(Thousands)
21,514
38,248
5,595
5,917 '
4,559
776
771
1,84
. 146
13,958
Shellfish (1975)
Amor Jean lobster
Sea scallops
Shrimps
Sea mussels
27,479
3,020
1,938
198
17,008
1,594
7,004
612
LJ
I
N)
Sources: Fisheries Statistics of the U.S., 1974 and 1975
-------
TABLE 3-9
LIFE HISTORY OF NEARSHORE
COMMERCIAL FINFISH IN THE GULF OF MAINE
Speciea
Redflsh or ocean
parch (Sebastea
oartnua)
Atlantic herring
(Culpea harenRus)
AClaotic cod
(Caddua aorrhua)
Pollock (Pollachlua
White hake
(Urophycis tenuis)
Silver hake
biolinearls)
Witch flounder
(Clvpcocephalus
cynoglosus)
Haddock
( Melanoprammus
aaaleflnla)
American plaice
(Hlppaftlosaoldes
placesaoldea)
Depth Preference
80 co 200 ft;
deaeraal rock or nud
Pelagic
Tide line - 1.500 ft;
demersal buc will
leave bottom
Surface - 600 ft;
pelagic
Tide line - L . 800 ft;
deaeraal and soft.
bottom
Tide line - 900 co
2,^00 fc; off Shelf
Pelagic
Sooe 60 co 90 fc;
but 360 co 900 fc;
demersal
Few less than 30 co
60 ft, oost 150 to
450 ft
Tide Line -
+2.000 ft; deaeraal
Food
Shrimps , ays Id s,
euphauslds , small
fishes
Co pa pod* and
other cooplonkcoa
Molluaka , craba,
other hoc too
Invertebrates
Larger zooplank-
enphausi ids and
fish
Small crustaceans,
squid , son e small
fish
Shrimp, squid.
fish
Diatoms , snail
zooplankcon
Small inverte-
brates of all
cypea
Varied diet:
brittle scars
bivalves , poly-
chaetes. craba,
squid. s«a
urchins
Invertebrates
of all types
Movements
cooler chaa 50"?;
move into shallower
water during winter
shore closer in the
suaaer than winter
adults
No migratory , aovo
co spawning grounds,
slight Uflhoro-
offahore
Mature wander, move
In southern Gulf of
Maine in winter
Young disperse
to deeper water ,
adults are non-
migratory, slight
inshore offshore
Migrate offshore In
late fall; other aove-
aents governed by
prey and temperature
Juveniles: estuary
offshore at end of
north into Gulf of
Maine in summer, move
south in winter
Stationary
Wandering In Gulf
of Maine , move to
spawning grounds
Stationary
Breeding Season
July to August
Spawn August to
December from
north to south
on falling water
teaperacura
Late February to
June
November to
Fall and winter
July to August
September
July to August
Lace spring and
summer peak
spawning In July
CO AUgUSC
Lace February co
May peak March,
April
Peak in May and
June
Eggs and Larvae
Ouo Viviparous;
larvae re leaved f roa
females; larvae
Deaeraal; gravel
bottoms, la leaa
than 300 ft,
larval period
5 to 3 aonths;
metamorphose close
co shore
Buoyant ; eggs 1 4 co
'30 days; 2 months
pelagic larvae
Buoyant; 2 months co
end of larval period
Buoyant
Buoyant ; 2 or 3
aonchs co end of
Larval period
Buoyant ; pelagic;
and metamorphose
Into Juveniles
Buoyant ; long pelagic
aontha
Buoyant, egga and
Larvae Pelagic 3
aonths
Buoyant, pelagic
period 3 to 4
months
Sources: Blgelau and Shroeder. 1953; TRIGOM, 1976
3-33
-------
concentrated in areas less than 20m deep by midsummer. Limited observations
suggest that some lobsters remain in deeper water throughout the year (NUSC,
1979).
Lobsters begin to return to deeper waters in the fall, where they are fished
during the winter. However, winter fishing occurs on a much smaller, scale, due
to adverse weather conditions. The Existing Site is seaward of the maior lobster
fishing area. The Edge of the Bottom and Inner Edge (Figure 3-7) have been
oroductive for northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis), veildine catches when ^hrimo
disaooeared from other areas of the cost (DAMOS, 1979). The shrimp fishery has
declined in recent years.
Scallops and mussels are the only molluscs commercially harvested in Maine-
These relatively minor fisheries are located within a few hundred meters of
the shore and not near the Existing Site. Scallops and mussels vere not
present in biological samples collected from the Existing Site during the
following surveys: Noraandeau, 1974; NUSC, 1977; IEC, 1979, 1980.
GENERAL MARINE RECREATION
Recreation is primarily associated with coastal parks and beaches, boating,
and sportfishing. The Existing Site is 6.8 nmi from the nearest point of
land, and its location has an insignificant impact on these activities.
Sport fisheries 3 nmi southwest of the Existing Site include limited bottom
fishing from party boats. Tuna tend to traverse the Edge of the Bottom
(Figure 3-7), thus a wide-ranging sportfishery for giant tuna occasionally is
present (NUSC, 1979).
SHIPPING
Portland is a natural deepwater harbor, ice-free, enclosed, and only 3 nmi
from open sea. The inner harbor has a waterfront, providing berths for oil
tankers, cargo ships, fishing boats, and government vessels. It has complete
inland transportation services, efficient ship servicing, and modern equipment
3-34
-------
to handle various types and volumes of cargo. Portland Harbor is the leading
port in northern New England in terms of tonnage. Foreign and domestic cargo
ships carried over 13.5 million tons of cargo to and from this port in 1979.
The Existing Site is located inside the Precautionary Zone, but infrequent
dumping will not affect shipping.
MILITARY ACTIVITIES
There are no known military activities in the area of the Existing Site
that would be affected by dredged material disposal.
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
The nearest present and proposed oil and gas leases, as part of the BLM
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale No- 42, are on Georges
Bank, far to the east and south of the Existing and Alternative Sites (BLM,
1977). There is no activity at or near the Sites, and there are no plans for
exploratory drilling near the Sites-
MARINE SANCTUARIES
There are no marine sanctuaries designated in this region of the State that
would be affected by dredged material disposal at the Existing Site.
The action of establishing a State Register of Critical Areas signaled
official recognition of the need to protect Maine's natural diversity. The
State of Maine Planning Office is charged with administering the Critical
Areas Program created by the State Legislature in 1974 (Martin, 1979). Listed
in their summary of the register of critical areas are:
No. 42 Western Beach Least Tern and Piping Plover Nesting Area - A
sandy beach area .•'n Scarborough, 12 nmi from the Existing Site.
No. 68 Upper Goose Island Heronny - A Great Blue Heron rookery in
Harpswell, 14 nmi from the Existing Site.
3-35
-------
No. 80 Stockman Island Eider Nesting Area in Cumberland, 105 nmi from
the Existing Site.
No. 267 Sister Island Ledge Seabird Nesting Area - A colony of Common
Terns in Freeport, 20 nmi from the Existing Site.
No. 269 Eagle Island Seabird Nesting Area - Breeding Eiders and a night
heron population in Harpswell, 9 nmi from the site.
None of these sites are close enough to be affected by disposal at the
Existing Site.
ACTIVE OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES (OTHER THAN THE EXISTING SITS)
Other ocean disposal sites in the vicinity of the Existing Site have been
used in the past for dredged material disposal. All of these have been
discontinued and it has been determined that they are not in favorable
locations for future use. CE (1979) contains a history of dredging and
disposal activities at those other sites, and Chapters 1 and 2 of this EIS
contain a detailed discussion concerning the selection of the Existing Site.
There are no other active ocean disposal sites off the coast of Maine.
PRESENT AND FUTURE STUDIES
Studies are being conducted at the Existing Site" by Science Applications Inc.
of Newport, Rhode Island as part of the ongoing Disposal Area Monitoring System
(DAMOS) program for the New England Division, U.S. Amry Corps of Engineers,
^altham, Massachusetts. These studies are conducted .semianually and include
bathvmetry, sediment chemistry, infauna analysis, and sampling for the Mussel
Watch Program. Chemistry samples and the analyzed data are provided to the CE.
3-36
-------
Chapter 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Most of the dredged material is expected to be retained
within the boundaries of the Existing Site because of local
bathymetric and oceanographic conditions. Adverse effects
on fisheries resources, navigational safety, and aesthetics
are minimized, thus eliminating the need for mitigating
measures. Baseline data are unavailable for the
Alternative Site near the Wilkinson Basin, and potential
effects of dredged material on this area have not been
established.
This chapter provides the scientific and analytical basis for evaluating
and comparing the alternatives described in Chapter 2. Accordingly, the
effects of dredged material disposal are classified under several headings.
The public health and safety section discusses potential health and
navigational hazards resulting from disposal activities. The ecosystem
section describes the environmental effects of dredged material disposal and
emergency dumping on water quality, sediment chemistry, and biota. A
discussion of the effects of dumping on recreation, economics, and aesthetics
of the area forms another section. In accordance with NEPA, adverse
environmental effects and mitigating measures, short-tern use versus long-term
productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are
summarized.
The Existing Site is an offshore area of rugged, rocky outcrops inter-
spersed with sediment traps or basins. Sediments within these basins closely
resemble the fine sand, silt, and clay sediments dredged from Portland Harbor.
The Existing Site has a moderate depth (62m), fine-grained sediments, weak
currents, and can be characterized as a low-energy environment. Consequently,
most of the dredged material will remain where it is dumped, and will not
create a navigational hazard through shoaling. Transport of dredged material
and disposal activities will not endanger public health and safety. Bacteria
and viruses that may be associated with dredged material will not pose a
threat to public health, as most will be killed soon after exposure to
4-1
-------
seawater and there are no shellfish beds in Che immediate area. Most trace
metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons will remain adsorbed onto sediment
particles during and after disposal. However, these chemicals may be
bioaccumulated by marine organisms, causing an unknown effect.
Potential adverse effects of dredged sediments on the biota include: (1)
localized burial of exposed rocky outcrops and associated epifauna, and
temporary or localized burial of some infaunal organisms within the sediment
basins interspersed among the rocky outcrops, (2) temporary displacement of
demersal finfish and lobster due to disturbance of their food sources and/or
shelter, (3) changes in physical and chemical characteristics of sediments and
water, and (4) introduction of pollutants to the surrounding sediments. The
mobility of finfish and lobsters and the absence of detectable releases of
toxic substances or a persistent turbidity plume minimizes the effects of
dredged material disposal on commercially important species.
The Alternative Site is a deep, low-energy environment with fine-grained
sediments or muds. Because of the depth (180m) dredged material may be
dispersed over a large area following disposal. Mounding may occur, but will
not create a navigational hazard because of the great depths.
Disposal activities at the Alternative Site are not expected to pose a
threat to public health or water quality. Some trace metals may be added to
the sediments but should not cause significant adverse effects.
Temporary and/or localized burial of benthic organisms may occur as a
result of disposal activities. The effect of this impact is expected to be
minimal. Little is known about the biota associated with the Alternative
Site.
EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
One of the primary concerns of Federal regulatory agencies regarding ocean
dumping is to provide guidelines to ensure that the health and safety of the
4-2
-------
public are not threatened. Three potential problems are: (1) shoaling of
sediments within the disposal site, thus creating a potential navigation
hazard, (2) tug and barge interference with boat traffic during transit to and
from the disposal site and during dumping operations, and (3) introduction of
potentially harmful pollutants and/or micro-organisms (bacteria, viruses) to
the disposal site and surrounding environment.
SHOALING
EXISTING SITE
The bottom topography at the Existing Site is rugged, characterized by
rocky outcrops and topographic lows (basins). Bottom sediments composed of
clay, silt, and fine sand suggest that the site is a low-energy environment.
The area is too deep to be significantly affected by stora waves or swells
that could resuspend dredged material (Farrell, 1972), and may be too shallow
desecent (Peaueenat et al, 1978). Furthermore, the rugged topographv will retard
the formation of the horizontally spreading bottom surge created bv impact of the
dredged material on the bottom (HolLiday, et al., 1978). Therefore, most dredged
material will he recained within the disposal site.
2
The largest of the sediment basins (0.11 nmi ) is 62m deep and is used as
the Point Disposal Location. The basin is surrounded by rocky outcrops 20m in
height. Assuming a minimum depth of 50m for the top of a dredged material
mound, the containment capacity of the basin is estimated to be 5 to 7 million
vd^' (DAMOS). Conseauently, effects of shoaling will be minimal since Che
disposed material will not fill the basin to the level of the surrounding
perimeter. No threat to navigation is expected.
4-3
-------
ALTERNATIVE SITE
Localized shoaling of dredged material could occur at the Alternative Site,
but would not pose a threat to navigation because of the great depths (180m).
The presence, direction, and rate of sediment transport from the mound cannot
be determined since site-specific, bottom current data are unavailable.
INTERFERENCE WITH NAVIGATION
EXISTING SITE
Tug and barge traffic between the dredging site and the disposal site will
not interfere significantly with commercial shipping traffic. However, tug
and barge traffic may be required to follow specific routes to avoid
interference with lobster pot sets and dragging activities for finfish and
shellfish. Dredging personnel are responsive to fishing interests and
conflict is not expected.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
The Alternative Site is situated between the main approach channels to
Portland Harbor from 3 and 7 nmi the nearest points of the southern and
eastern channels, respectively. Neither the transit nor the discharge phases
of dredged material disposal at the alternative site would affect navigation.
INTRODUCTION OF POTENTIALLY HARMFUL TOXINS AND/OR ORGANISMS
HARMFUL TOXINS
CE bioassay studies indicate that the discharges of dredged material from
the Portland Harbor area would be ecological acceptable according to the
criteria established in the ocean dumping regulations. In addition, most of
the bioaccumulation tests performed indicate no potential for xemobiotic
constituents of the material to accumulate in the human food chain. Mercury
has not been demonstrated to biomagnify in the ecological food web.
4-4
-------
Trace metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons (pesticides and derivatives) are
unlikely to be released into the water during descent of the dredged material,
as they are strongly adsorbed onto sediment particles (Chen et al., 1976;
Murray and Norton, 1979). Trace metal and chlorinated hydrocarbon release is
mitigated primarily by the pH and redox potential characteristic of seawater.
Large variations in these parameters are required for major releases to occur,
but these variations are unlikely, as seawater is highly buffered. (Baram
et al., 1978) and dilution factors are large, especially in well-mixed coastal
waters .
Trace metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons are often concentrated in bottom
sediments, but there is little evidence of these materials leaching into the
overlying water (Chen et al. , 1.976; Murray and Norton, 1979). Benthic infauna
may or may not accumulate toxins from the sediments (Hirsch et al., 1978;
Swartz et al. , 1979); however, the possibility of contaminating finfish and
shellfish exists.
MICROBIOLOGY
Total and fecal coliforms may be indicators of contamination froa sewage
inputs, and signal the possibility that pathogenic organisms may be present.
Human pathogenic bacteria and viruses released into the ODMDS from disposal of
contaminated sediments may threaten nearby shellfish beds. Shellfish are able
to filter and concentrate bacteria and viruses during feeding, thus human
consumption of contaminated organisms could be potentially harmful. Sediments
because rhe harbor received raw sewage from numerous sewer outfalls prior to
installation of a secondary treatment plant at Fish Point in 1979 (CE, I979a,b).
Some bacteria may remain alive within sediments deposited at the Existing
or Alternative Sites because bacteria are actively adsorbed by clays and silts
(Weiss, 1951). Attachment to particles during sedimentation (associated with
disposal activities) will remove most bacteria from suspension and associated
bacteria will remain primarily attached to the particles. Bacteria will
4-5
-------
utilize nutrients contained in disposal sediments (Gerba and McLeod, 1976),
and their subsequent survival and reproduction will depend on the amount of
organic material available.
Deposition of dredged material at the Existing or Alternative Sites may
elevate concentrations of bacteria and viruses in the water after disposal,
but those organisms are expected to be killed or removed quickly (Buelow
et al., 1968). Certain characteristics of seawater rapidly kill enteric
bacteria (Fisher, 1970). The most significant of these are the poorly
understood bactericidal properties of seawater and predation by protozoans and
nannoplankton. Consequently, water at the disposal site should not be signi-
ficantly contaminated by enteric bacteria during the brief disposal
activities. No threat to human health is expected at either the Existing or
Alternative Sites because:
• Filter-feeding shellfish are uncommon in the disposal area, and the
nearest commercially fished clam beds are over 6 nmi from the
disposal sites (Coastal Planning Program, 1977)
• No recreational activities, such as swimming or diving, occur in the
disposal areas
EFFECTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM
This section discusses the possible effects of dredged material disposal on
water quality, sediments, and biota of the Existing and Alternative Sites.
Certain factors can prevent or mitigate effects of ocean-disposed dredged
material. Such mitigating processes include the ability of many benthic fauna
to withstand burial, and to enter and recolonize the site.
4-6
-------
WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY
EXISTING SITE
Baseline and monitoring investigations were not performed when the Existing
Site was last used as a dump site about 1946. Recent investigations in other
areas, however, provide a model for the effects of dredged material disposal
on water and sediment characteristics.
Silty-clay sediments are being dredged from Portland Harbor by a clamshell
dredge and transported in bottom-dumping scows. Dredged material excavated in
this manner retains much of the in-place density because little or no water is
added during clamshell dredging operations (Baram et al., 1978). As a result,
most material falls rapidly to che bottom in the form of cohesive clods when
released from the scow (Pequegnat et al • , 1978). A bottom surge forms upon
impact, composed of dredged material and indigenous sediment. The bottom
surge is usually confined to a circular area approximately 200m in radius
(Bokuniewicz et al., 1976), and is further restricted at the Existing Sice
because of the rugged topography (Holliday et al., 1978).
Turbidity of receiving waters is unavoidably increased temporarily; the
amount of time the turbid plume is present is related to the general
oceanographic conditions. Fine particles arising from partial collapse of the
dredged material clods during descent and at impact forms a disposal plume
(Pequegnat et al., 1978). Typically, the plume dissipates after a few hours.
Numerous studies have concluded that the suspended loads are not sufficiently
great to cause any short- or long-term adverse effects, except in those
systems sensitive to water clarity, such as coral reefs and kelp beds (Flemer,
1970; Kirsch et al., 1978; Baram et al., 1978). Therefore, the short duration
and irregular occurrence of a disposal plume at the Existing Site can be
expected to have a minimal effect on the nektonic and benthic organisms.
The deposition of dredged material may release nutrients and/or toxic trace
metals to the water. Nutrient releases may stimulate biological activity and
may lead to localized population increases or "blooms" of phytoplankton
4-7
-------
(Chen et al., 1976; Pequegnat et al. , L978). Ammonia is Che only nutrient
consistently released in great volumes during disposal operations (Windom,
1972, 1975, 1976). An increase in ammonia concentrations can stimulate
productivity, but high concentrations may be toxic to some organisms
(Natarjan, 1970; Brown and Currie, 1973; EPA, 1976). Rapid dilution and
transport, however, are expected to reduce the concentrations to ambient
levels before toxic or biostimulation effects can occur. Consequently, no
significant adverse effects from nutrient release are expected as a result of
dredged material disposal at the Existing Site.
Disposal operations at the Existing Site are not likely to have significant
adverse effects on water quality. Toxic trace metal release from descending
dredged material is controlled primarily by chemical properties of the water
column, particularly the pH and redox potential (Baram et al., 1978). For
example, manganese is released under reducing and oxidizing environments,
whereas iron and, possibly, lead are released under reducing conditions (Lee
et al., 1975). Other trace metals are reabsorbed, not released, or released
in small amounts only (Chen and Wang, 1976; Lee et al., 1976). Large
variations in pH and redox potential, which would allow major releases of
trace metals, are unlikely because ocean waters are highly buffered (Baram et
al., 1978).
Dredged sediments contain substances which are susceptible to oxidation by
dissolved oxygen; thus these sediments often exert a slight oxygen demand as
they descend through the water column. The initial oxygen decrease depends
somewhat on the type of material dumped; clean sand/gravel 0 demand being the
lowest, and 0- demanded by anoxic and organically-rich sediments being the
highest (Baram et al., 1978). Surface dissolved oxygen concentrations were
reduced by up to 2 ppm for 2 minutes before returning to ambient levels during
pipeline disposal operations involving silt in San Francisco Bay (Tetra Tech,
1977). It is anticipated that dumping from a barge at the Existing Site will
not reduce oxygen concentrations by this magnitude. However, even changes of
this magnitude are unlikely to produce harmful effects on fishes or other
organisms. Fishes can either swim to other areas or endure temporary
4-8
-------
reductions in dissolved oxygen levels to as low as 3 ppm (Prager, 1974), and
numerous species of invertebrates can respire anaerobically during such
periods of oxygen depletion (Moore, 1962).
Variations in nearshore concentrations of suspended solids nutrients and
dissolved oxygen are often correlated with tidal periodicity (Holton et al • ,
1978) and/or seasonal resuspension of sediments from shallow areas (TRIGOM,
1974). Consequently, the natural fluctuation of these variables may be
greater than, or obscure any changes resulting from, the disposal of dredged
materials •
Sediments in the Existing Site and Portland Harbor were analyzed by iflJSC
(197i). Results indicate that concentrations of mercury, cadmium, and lead
were higher in the harbor sediments than in disposal area sediments (Table
A-7). Consequently, deposition of Portland Harbor areas sediments may
slevate the concentrations of some trace metals in Existing Site sediments.
This increase is not expected to significantly affect water quality because
several studies (CE, 1982; Chen and Wong, 1976; Murray and Norton, 1979)
suggest that the majority of trace metals are likely to remain within the
«oJin.:nt , A'itli ne^l. i<: ID Le release or leaching into the water column.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
Disposal operations at the Alternative Site nay affect a larger area than
at the Existing Site, simply because of the greater depths (180m) and greater
dispersion. After disposal at a deepwater site the dredged material will
remain in a cohesive clod and reach terminal velocity shortly after release
from the scow. Shear stresses will rapidly develop within the clod, allowing
entrainment of ambient water which will decrease the density and descent
speed. As no pycnocline exists in winter months off Portland (Emery and
Uchupi, 1972), the descending cloud will exhibit minimal collapse before
bottom impact. In summertime, however, the descending cloud will encounter a
pycnocline within the first 50m (Emery and Uchupi, 1972), and may suffer
extensive vertical collapse and horizontal spreading before reaching the
bottom (Pequegnat et al . , 1978).
4-9
-------
The topography of the Alternative Site is flat and featureless.
Consequently, the bottom surge formed by che impact of the descending dredged
material and indigenous sediment will not be restricted and can be expected to
extend for at least 200m from the impact point (Bokuniewicz et al., 1976).
As discussed for the Existing Site, disposal operations at the Alternative
Site are not likely to have long-term adverse effects on water turbidity or
water quality. Deposition of Portland Harbor sediments, however, may elevate
the concentrations of some trace metals within the sediments at the
Alternative Site as is noted at the Existing Site.
BIOTA
In general, dredged material disposal presents four potential problems to
aquatic organisms at disposal sites: (1) direct burial, (2) temporary
increases in turbidity, (3) changes in physical and chemical characteristics
of sediments and water, and (4) the introduction of pollutants. The
conclusions of the DMRP concerning the impact of dredged sediments on biota
are discussed below.
t
EXISTING SITE
Plankton
Effects of dredged material disposal on phytoplankton, zooplankton, and
ichthyoplankton are difficult to assess because of high natural variability.
In addition, the influence of tidal and river discharges, and diurnal changes
in zooplankton and ichthyoplankton abundances, increase the difficulty of
measuring disposal effects. Sullivan and Hancock (1977) concluded that for
most oceanic areas natural fluctuations in plankton populations are so large
that field surveys would not be useful for detecting the impacts of dredged
material disposal.
4-10
-------
Releases of dredged material will cause a short-term increase in turbidity.
The usual result is a localized decrease in light penetration with a
concomitant reduction of photosynthetic activity (Windom, 1976; Stern and
Stickle, 1978), but the turbidity plumes are not persistent (Boone et al.,
1978). No long-term changes in dissolved nutrients, trace metal concen-
trations, or phytoplankton primary productivity are attributable to dredged
material disposal (Wright, 1978; Hirsh et al., 1978) and long-term adverse
changes are not expected at the Existing Site.
Benthos
Many factors are important in determining the mortality and recovery of
benthic organisms subjected to burial by the disposal of dredged material.
Numerous investigations have demonstrated that disposal has a profound impact
on the less mobile species, whereas active species are able to escape burial
(Oliver et al. , 1977; Richardson et al. , 1977). Mortality is minimized and
recovery maximized at sites which are naturally unstable due to wave or
current action, and when the physical characteristics of the dredged sediments
are similar to those at the disposal site (Saila et al., 1972; Oliver et al.,
1977). Other factors which are important are the frequency of disposal, size
of disposal area, and distance from colonizing sources (Oliver et ai., 1972).
At the Existing Site dredged material composed of silt and fine sand will
be dumped on a highly heterogenous bottom, ranging from exposed and rugged
rocky outcrops to small sedimentary basins filled with silt and fine sand.
Because of its depth (62m) and basin configuration, the Point Disposal
Location is not significantly affected by waves and currents, and is
considered a low-energy environment (DAMOS). Conseauently, disposed material is
likely to remain in Che area.
Based on photographs of the disposal site (Appendix B), a diverse community
inhabits the rocky outcrops. The community is dominated by attached species,
such as brachiopods, erect and encrusting sponges, barnacles, anemones,
tunicates, bryozoans and/or hydroids. Mobile species, such as asteroids,
4-11
-------
ophiuroids, and sea urchins, are present in low numbers. Large crustaceans
were not observed, although their absence may be a sampling artifact, since
highly mobile species may avoid the camera equipment.
Deposition of dredged material on the rocky outcrops will drastically alter
the associated community. Many species will survive light sedimentation,
although reproduction and subsequent larval settlement rates may be reduced.
Increasing levels of sedimentation resulting from prolonged disposal
operations will kill progressively more of the attached species, as well as
the less mobile forms. A thick layer of fine-grained sediment will destroy
rocky outcrop habitats. Because the Existing Site is a low-energy environ-
ment, the sediment layer will Likely remain for a long period of time,
Smothering of organisms is expected at the immediate dumpsite.
Deposition of dredged material into the sedimentary basins will modify the
infaunal communities, although not as drastically as for the rocky substrata.
Recovery should be relatively rapid.
The infaunal communities are dominated by polychaetes, although molluscs
and crustaceans are present. Many of the polychaetes (20% to 50%) are small,
tubicolous suspension feeders and may be smothered by dredged material. Most
burrowers and deposit feeders will be relatively unaffected by light to
moderate amounts of sedimentation.
Other small sedimentary basins within the Existing Site contain sediments
similar in characteristics to the dredged material. By encroaching on the
rocky habitats, disposal of dredged material may increase sediment surface
areas of these basins. Assuming that the predisposal and postdisposal
sediments are similar, the larger postdisposal sedimentary areas may support
more species than the smaller predisposal areas because of the increased area
available for colonization by sediment dwelling species. Larger surface areas
support greater numbers of species (May, 1975).
Recovery rates within sedimentary basins may be fairly high because natural
sediments and dredged material are similar and recolonization sources are
4-12
-------
nearby. Areas of similar sediment characteristics may serve as recolonizing
sources. These areas include other basins within the ODMD5 which are not
affected by disposal, and areas to the south and west of the ODMDS. However,
recolonization will be retarded if the dredged material contains excessive
amounts of toxic substances (Engler, 1976; Prater and Anderson, 1977) and/or
if disposal activities occur frequently over a prolonged period of time
(Murray and Norton, L979). However, neither of these conditions should occur,
and recolonization is expected to occur rapidly. Most areas within the ODMDS
are not unique to the region, and therefore, even worst-case effects do not
represent a significant loss or impact.
Finfish and Shellfish
Dredged material disposal may be expected to affect the various life stages
of finfish and shellfish in several ways:
• Interfere with feeding, respiration, and/or development
• Release toxic substances that will affect the general health of the
organisms
« Interfere with feeding areas
• Interfere with nursery grounds
Adults of pelagic finfish are unlikely to be affected directly by dredged
material disposal. Individuals are not dependent on specific areas and are
expected to escape or avoid regions of disposal activity. Although
populations of demersal fish may be restricted to local areas, these fishes
are mobile, and burial by dumping would be unlikely.
Little is known about the effects of suspended sediment on egg and larval
development of any fish species- No adverse effects have been observed in the
development of winter flounder eggs covered with 3 mm of fine sediments; these
fish spawn demersal eggs in estuarine areas and may be adapted to withstand
4-13
-------
thin layers of sediments (Baram et al., 1978). In another study, however,
suspended sediment was found to have adverse effects on the larval stages of
both winter flounder and striped bass (O'Connor et al., 1977).
Numerous laboratory experiments have reported suffocation of pelagic and
demersal finfish by suspended sediment (Rogers, 1969; Sherk et al., 1974).
The concentrations and exposures utilized, however, were unrealistically high
compared to actual oceanic conditions (Baram et al., 1978). Suffocation of
finfish by the deposition of dredged material at the Existing Site is not
expected because of the rapid, dilution and transient nature of the suspended
sediment, and also because the fish are mobile and can avoid the turbid plume.
Dredged materials do not release significant amounts of toxic substances
(e.g., trace metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons) as they descend to the bottom,
but may adsorb some minute amounts of trace metals from the water during
descent (Baram et al., 1978). Additional studies suggest that there is little
leaching of toxic substances from newly deposited sediments into overlying
water (Murray and Norton, 1979).
The extent to which benthic infauna can accumulate toxic substances from
sediments is unclear. Some investigators report no accumulation (Hirsch et al.,
1978), whereas others demonstrate significant bioaccumulation Leading to death
(Baram et al., 1978; Murray and Norton, 1979). If toxic substances are present,
finfish that are relatively restricted to the region surrounding the Existing
Si'te may or may not indirectly accumulate toxic substances from the dredged
material via the food chain, or direct assimilation through gills and other
membrances".
Numerous studies have demonstrated a correlation between polluted sediments
and the incidence of finfish and shellfish disease, although no single
causative factor has been identified (Mahoney et al., 1973; Young and Pearce,
1975; Ziskowski and Mirchelano, 1975; O'Connor, 1976; Murray and Norton,
1979). Consequently, it is not possible to predict whether deposition would
induce finfish and shellfish disease at the Existing Site. Current levels of
infection are not well documented.
4-14
-------
Dredged material disposal may affect the diet and abundance of groundfish.
In studies at the Columbia River ODMDS, Oregon, Durkin and Lipovsky (1977)
attributed apparent changes in food preference and the decreases in finfish
abundance, numbers of species, and mean size, to disposal operations. These
effects were temporary, however, as food consumption patterns and abundances
were similar to levels in control organisms within 1 to 6 months after
disposal.
The adult Maine lobster (Homarus americanus) is highly tolerant to
siltation and is not significantly or adversely affected by direct dredged
material disposal. Some developmental stages of lobster larvae, however, are
sensitive to specific particle size ranges and/or certain concentrations of
suspended sediment (Cobb, 1976, cited in Baram et al., L978).
Dredged material disposal may indirectly affect adult lobsters by altering
or eliminating shelter. Atlantic lobsters are non-migratory when shelter and
food are available, and seek hiding places in crevices, between boulders, and
under rocks, algae, and bottom debris (Dow et al., 1975). The topography at
Che Existing Site is rocky, making it a suitable habitat for lobsters.
Disposal of dredged material nay decrease the desirability of this habitat,
and the limited fishing effort in the area may indicate that few lobsters are
present (NUSC, 1979).
All life stages of lobsters, shrimps, and crabs are susceptible to trace
concentrations of commercial insecticides, especially chlorinated
hydrocarbons and organic phosphates (Dow et al. , 1975). These chemicals
enter the marine environment primarily through freshwater runoff and
atmospheric fallout.
The amount of chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT, PCS) in sediments collected
from the Existing Site are substantially less than for major harbor areas in
4-L5
-------
che New York Bight (West et al., L976; West and Hatcher, 1980).
Recent CE (1981, 1982) bioaccumulation studies concluded that five
constituents (Cd, Hg, PCBs, DDT, and petroleum hydrocarbons) did not
represent an unacceptable hazard to marine organisms through the mechanism of
bioaccumulation.
Of all the trace metals, elevated levels of dissolved'cooper cause the highest
rate of mortality in lobsters. An appreciable increase- in the cooper concen-
tration in water may cause death (Dow et al., 1975). The concentration of copper
in sediments dredged from- Portland Habor is substantially higher than that
present in sediments at the Existing Site. However, the majority of trace metals
(including copper);.in dredged material remain associated with the particulate
material and are not expected to enter the dissolved phase during or after
dumping (Chen et al. , 1976; Murray and Norton, 1979). Consequently, Lobster
mortality due to dissolved copper toxicity is not expected at the Existing Site.
Rioaccumulation studies for trace metals have not been performed for sediments at
the Existing Site.
Marine MammaIs^
Dredged material disposal involves negligible risk to marine mammals.
Most marine mammals tend to avoid human activities; therefore, the probability
of an animal colliding with a tug and barge, or being caught in the release of
dredged material, is small. Whereas the ability of whales to avoid collision
with a hopper dredge may seem intuitively obvious, scars left by the
propellers of high-speed outboard motor boats have occasionally been noted on
seals and-sea lions. The slow speed of a hopper dredge, however, allows ample
response time for marine mammals to avoid the vessel. Cetaceans and pinnipeds
are strong swimmers and are expected to escape the dredged material release
zone.
Presumably, most cetaceans migrate through the Gulf of Maine to southern
breeding grounds or northern feeding areas. However, it is not known that
they migrate through the Existing Site. Considering the brief presence in the
area and infrequent feeding of whales during migration, the limited size of
4-16
-------
the site, and the trace levels of constituents in the dredged material and
their limited bioavailability, a threat to whales by contamination from
dredged material disposal at the Existing Site is not expected. Exceptions
are the harbor porpoise, which inhabit the coastal area throughout the year,
and the pilot whale, which apparently follows the seasonal onshore-offshore
migrations of squid. The infrequent disposal of dredged material at the
Existing Site is not expected to significantly alter the migrations or
movements of cetaceans.
Significant uptake of contaminants by prey organisms, and possible
depletion of the latter, are highly unlikely due to the short postdisposal
residence time of dredged material in the water column, and the dynamics of
fish and zooplankton populations. Even in a worst-case analysis, it is
inconceivable that migrating whales could be affected by the limited amounts
of water column organisms affected by disposal at the Existing Site.
Much of this analysis applies to pinnipeds as well. Harbor seals breed,
feed, and migrate throughout the Gulf of Maine, but these activities are
confined primarily inshore of the Existing Site. A few gray seals are present
in the warmer months. The breeding and haulout areas of harbor and gray seals
are far from the Existing Site and no impact is expected. The lack of
significant expected impact on the fish populations suggests that pinniped
food quality or quantity will not be affected.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Six species of endangered whales and three species of endangered turtles
have been observed within the Gulf of Maine at certain times of the year.
Only the finback and humpback whales and the ridley and leatherback turtles
occur in the vicinity of the Existing Site. Infrequent and localized ocean
disposal of dredged material is not expected to have a significant effect on
any of these endangered species.
The bald eagle commonly occurs along the Gulf of Maine coast, but no nests
have been located within 22 nmi from the Existing Site within the past 18
4-17
-------
years. Furthermore, Maine eagles nesting near marine environments tend to
utilize nonfish prey, especially during winter (Fefer and Schettig, 1980).
Consequently, it is unlikely that dredged material disposal at the Existing
Site would interfere with the nests or food resources of this endangered bird.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
No site-specific information regarding the composition and abundances of
the Alternative Site fauna is available. The site is only 15 nmi southeast of
the Existing Site and. is subjected to similar oceanographic conditions.
Consequently, planktonic and nektonic species at the Alternative Site are
likely to resemble those at the Existing Site. The effects of dredged
material disposal-'-are expected to be similar at both sites.
Benthic communities at the two sites may not be comparable. In general,
benthic communities in the Gulf of Maine vary widely from one area to another,
reflecting the complex and variable bathymetry of the Gulf. The Alternative
Site is nearly 150m deeper than the Existing Site and is characterized by
soft, brown and gray sediments. Consequently, the deposition of silty-clay
dredged materials could cause a minimal change in sediment texture, and
subsequent recovery of the impacted infauna communities may occur rapidly.
However, insufficient information exists for the Alternative Site to justify
designation as a disposal area without additional study.
EMERGENCY DUMPING
The seafloor between the dredging site and disposal area is composed
primarily of rocky outcrops, with some accumulations of gravel. Deposition of
the silty-clay dredged material as a result of short dumping would add
sediment that is different from natural sediments. This could have several
adverse effects. First, rock-associated epifauna might be killed and recovery
rates of this community could be very long. Secondly, important lobster
fishing grounds are located in this area during summer and short dumping may
4-18
-------
reduce sources of food or shelter. Finally, Atlantic herring may be affected,
as they spawn demersal eggs on clean sand or gravel in nearshore areas of high
current flow.
Short dumping would be expected to result in significant adverse effects,
as these areas are important shellfish and finfish fishing grounds. The
possibilities of an emergency dump increase if the disposal site is moved
further offshore, particularly during marginal and deteriorating weather
conditions. It is, therefore, important to maintain the disposal site as near
as possible to the dredging area.
EFFECTS ON RECREATION, ECONOMICS, AND AESTHETICS
FISHERIES
EXISTING SITE
A previously proposed dredged material disposal site was rejected by
commercial fishermen because they believed its use would interfere with
fishing activities (NUSC, 1979). Subsequently, the fishermen recommended the
Existing Site's location because of its limited interference with commercial
fishing. This site was specifically selected for the following reasons: (1)
it was not within a dragging area, (2) it was situated at least a mile from
any tow path, and (3) the bathymetry and current speed and direction would
prevent the transport of material toward the dragging grounds (NUSC, 1979).
The nearest primary dragging ground is approximately 1.5 nmi to the east
(offshore) of the Existing Site. In summer up to 10 vessels per day may fish
these areas, and the number increases to as many as 25 vessels per day in the
winter and early spring (NUSC, 1979).
•^•-r rr.ji.al finfish are mobile and direct burial of pelagic or demersal
species is not expected. Furthermore, dredged material will not significantly
effect the dragging grounds as bathvmetric and oceanopraohic conditions &'i! !
4-19
-------
confine most of the dredged material to the disposal area. Disposal is not
expected to result in measured suffocation from gill clogging or exposure to
toxic substances .
Most of the commercially important finfish spawn pelagic eggs far offshore
of the Existing Site and will not be affected by dredged material disposal.
The silver hake, however, spawns pelagic eggs in a broad, nearshore spawning
area extending from Cape Cod to the Bay of Fundy. The Existing Site is within
this region but represents an extremely small portion of the total area.
Consequently, dredged material disposal will not significantly affect the
recruitment of silver hake to the Gulf of Maine. Two other commercial species
spawn demersal eggs, but neither are likely to utilize the benthos at the
Existing .Site. .-.-The Atlantic herring requires clean sand or gravel in
nearshore regions of high current flow, and the winter flounder prefers
shallow estuarine water.
Most of the lobster fishery occurs inshore of the Existing Site. Lobsters
move shoreward into warmer water beginning in late spring, and by mid-summer,
most lobstering is confined to waters less than 20m deep. The fishery moves
into deeper water during November to April and the Existing Site experiences
minor lobstering during this period. Less than five vessels fish this depth
region, although several hundred pots may be set (NUSC, 1979).
Adult lobsters are highly tolerant of siltation and disposal activities
should not affect either resident or migrating lobsters within the Existing
Site. Some developmental stages of lobster larvae are sensitive to suspended
solids; lobster larvae are present in the water from May to October and may be
locally affected by dredged material disposal during this period. The
disposal plume, however, is relatively small and lasts a short time, and
should not significantly affect lobster recruitment within the Gulf of Maine.
ALTERNATIVE SITE
According to a survey of demersal fish conducted by NOAA CL$76a,b)
commercial species of finfish and shellfish are not abundant in deeper areas
4-20
-------
immediately surrounding the Alternative Site. Witch flounder were moderately
abundant at an area 5 nmi northeast of the Alternative Site, but other species
were absent or uncommon. Moderate amounts of American plaice and low numbers
of red and white hake, cod, and shrimp were present at a station 11 nmi from
the Alternative Site.
Jeffreys Ledge and Platts Bank (Figure 1-1) are two of the major fishing
grounds in the North Atlantic (TRIGOM, 1974). They are 10 nmi southwest and
southeast of the Alternative Site, respectively, and are much shallower than
the Alternative Site. Haddock and silver hake (seasonally) form the major
fisheries in these areas; redfish, American plaice, and witch flounder are
somewhat less important. Jeffreys Ledge is an important sportfishing area as
well, where anglers catch cod, haddock, cusk, and halibut (DOI, 1977).
Disposal of dredged material at the Alternative Site is not expected to affect
the fisheries on Jeffreys Ledge or Piatts Bank.
No spawning grounds are known to occur within the Alternative Site,
although silver hake and Atlantic herring spawn in nearby (2.2 nmi), nearshore
areas (NUSC, 1979). Neither are likely to be affected by dredged material
disposal, for reasons discussed previously. Consequently, dredged disposal
activities are not expected to adversely affect fisheries within Wilkinson
Basin.
AESTHETICS
Disposal of dredged materials at either the Existing or Alternative Site
will create a near-surface turbidity plume which may require several hours to
dissipate. Most of the dredged material will fall rapidly as an intact, dense
cloud, but fine particles arising from partial collapse of the cloud during
descent and at impact will form a plume (Pequegnat et al., 1978). At either
site surface currents will transport the plume horizontally. Disposal
operations are conducted infrequently, however, and effects on aesthetics are
temporary and will, most likely, only be noticed by boaters operating in the
immediate area.
4-21
-------
Excessive noise resulting from dredged material disposal is unlikely at
either the Existing or Alternative Site. Disposal activities require a tug
and barge and operational sounds will be similar to sounds from other boat
traffic in the area.
The dredged material contains highly reduced sediments and the aromatic
smell will be quite apparent when near the barge. This effect is temporary
and will be noticed only in a small area during transport and dumping.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES
None of the environmental effects attributed to dredged material disposal
at the Existing Site are known to degrade the marine environment outside the
actual disposal site. Only relatively minor effects have occurred within the
site itself. Consequently, mitigating measures are not required to protect
the environment outside of the Existing Site, since significant unavoidable
adverse environmental effects do not occur.
Unavoidable adverse effects which occur within the site include minor
changes in bathymetry, sediment grain size distribution, demersal fish
distribution, and benthic community composition. Only bathymetric changes
(mounding) can be significantly mitigated by the site designation. The other
changes are minor and localized at the Existing Site. Similar slight effects
would be expected to occur within any designated site over a soft sediment
substrate in the Gulf of Maine.
Mounding is not a problem at the Existing Site even though point dumping is
employed, because the site is a natural sediment basin or pocket located in
deep water (60m). This basin can accommodate all of the material generated by
the Portland dredging activities over the next 5 years and still maintain a
water depth in excess of 40m.
4-22
-------
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Disposal operations do not interfere with the long-term use of any of the
resources of the area. Neither commercial nor sportfishing efforts in the
Site vicinity are significant or could be impaired by disposal operations.
The associated species of finfish and shellfish of the region are not
endangered by the disposal operations. In particular, the valuable lobster
fishery shoreward of the site is not affected by dredged material disposal
operations.
IRREVERSIBLE OR
IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
The only irreversible or irretrievable resources committed to the disposal
operation are:
• Loss of energy in the form of fuel for the dredge and tug
• Loss of economic resource because of the cost associated with the
dumping operation (opportunity costs)
These losses, however, are insignificant in comparison with the advantages
of disposing of Portland Harbor dredged material at the Existing Site, as
discussed in Chapter 2.
4-23
-------
CHAPTER 5
COORDINATION
This Final EIS was issued by che Environmental Protection Agency's Ocean
Dumping EIS Task Force. This document was based on a Preliminary Draft EIS
prepared by Interstate Electronic Corporation. Reviews and revisions were
prepared by Frank G. Csulak. Additional reviews and support were provided by the
members of the EIS Task Force:
William C. Shilling, Project Officer
Michael S. Moyer
Edith R. Young
Commenters on the Draft EIS
The following persons submitted written comments on the Draft EIS. Their
letters and responses can be located in Appendix E.
Letter
Number Commenter
Barbara E. Onestak
Acting Chairman
Committee on Environmental Matters
National Science Foundation
Washington, D.C. 20550
W.R. Murden, P.E.
Chief, Dredging Division
Department of the Army
Water Resources Support CEnter
Corps of Engineers
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
5-1
-------
Letter
Number Commenter (Cont'd)
3 William P. Patterson
Regional Environmental Officer
Office of Environmental Project Review
Office of the Secretary
United States Department of the
Interior
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
4 Kenneth S. Kamlet
Director, Pollution and Toxic
Substances Division
National Wildlife Federation
Washington, D.C. 20036
5 Joyce M. Wood
Director, Office of Ecology and
Conservation
National Oceanic and Atmoshperic
Administration
United States Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20235
PREPARERS OF THE PRELIMINARY EIS
Preparation of the Preliminary EIS was a joint effort employing many scientific
and technical members of the Ocean Science Department in the Oceanic Engineering
Operation of Interstate Electronic Corporation.
William B. Merselis
Jim Coyer
John Doresey
Monteith Heaton
Marshal Holstron
William Steinhauer
5-2
-------
Chapter 6
GLOSSARY, ABBREVIATIONS, AND REFERENCES
GLOSSARY
ABUNDANCE
ADSORB
ALKALINITY
AMBIENT
AMPHIPODA
ANTHROPOGENIC
APPROPRIATE
SENSITIVE
BENTHIC
MARINE ORGANISMS
-The number of individuals of a species inhabiting a given
area. Normally, a coramunicy of several component species
will inhabit an area. Measuring the abundance of each
species is one way of estimating the comparativa importance
of each component species.
To adhere in an extremely thin layer of molecules to the
surface of a solid or liquid.
Tne number of ailliequivalents of hydrogen ions neutralized
by one liter of seawacer at 20°C. Alkalinity of water is
often taken as an indicator of ics carbonate, bicarbonate,
and hydroxide content.
Pertaining to the
an environment.
undisturbed or unaffected conditions of
An order of crustaceans (primarily marine) with laterally
compressed bodies, which generally appear similar co
shrimp. The order consists primarily of three groups:
hyperiideans, which inhabit open ocean areas; gamnarideans,
which are primarily bottom dwellers; and caprellideans,
common fouling organisms.
Relating to the effects or impacts of man on nature.
Construction wastes, garbage, and sewage sludge are
examples of anthropogenic materials.
Pertaining to bioassay samples required for ocean dumping
pennies, "at least one species each representing filter-
feeding, deposit-feeding, and burrowing species chosen from
among the most sensitive species accepted by EPA as being
reliable test organisms to determine the anticipated impact
on the site" (40 CFR §227.27).
APPROPRIATE Pertaining to bioassay samples required for ocean
SENSITIVE MARINE dumping permits, "at least one species each representative
ORGANISMS of phytoplankton or zooplankton, crustacean or mollusk,
and fish species chosen from among the most sensitive
species documented in the scientific literature or accepted
by EPA as being reliable test organisms to determine the
anticipated impact of the wastes on the ecosystem at the
disposal site" (40 CFR §227.27).
ASSEMBLAGE
A group of organisms sharing a common habitat.
6-1
-------
BACKGROUND
LEVEL
BASELINE
CONDITIONS
BASELINE SURVEYS
AND BASELINE
DATA
BENTHOS
BIOACCUMULATION
BIOASSAY
B KM ASS
BIOTA
BIOTIC GROUPS
BLOOM
BOD
BOREAL
CEPHALOPODS
The naturally occurring concentration of
within an environment which has not been
unnatural additions of that substance.
a substance
affected by
The characteristics of an environment before the onset of
an action which can alter that environment; any data
serving as a basis for measurement of other data.
Surveys and data collected prior to the initiation
actions which may alter an existing environment.
of
All marine organisms (plant or animal) living on or in the
bottom of the sea.
The uptake and assimilation of materials (e.g., heavy
metals) leading to elevated concentrations of the
substances within organic tissue, blood, or body fluid.
A method for determining the toxicity of a substance by the
effect of varying concentrations nn growth or survival of
suitable plants, animals or micro-organisms; the concen-
tration which is lethal to 50% of the test organisms or
causes a defined effect in 50/« of the test organisms, often
expressed in terms of lethal concentration (LC-.,) or
effective concentration (EC-Q) , respectively.
(LC5Q)
The quantity (wet weight) of living organisms inhabiting a
given area or volume at any time; often used as a means of
measuring the productivity of an ecosystem.
Animals and plants inhabiting a given region.
Assemblages of organisms which are
structurally, or taxonomically similar.
ecologically,
A relatively high concentration of phytoplankton in a body
of water resulting from rapid proliferation during a time
of favorable growing conditions generated by nutrient and
sunlight availability.
^Biochemical Oxygen D_emand or ^Biological £xygen JDeraand; the
amount of dissolved oxygen required by aerobic micro-
organisms to degrade organic matter in a sample of water
usually held in the dark at 20°C for 5 days; used to assess
the potential rate of substrate degradation and oxygen
utilization in aquatic ecosystems.
Pertaining to the northern geographic regions.
Exclusively marine animals constituting the most highly
evolved class of the phylum Mollusca (e.g., squid, octopus,
and Nautilus).
6-2
-------
CHAETOGNATHA
CHLORINITY
CHLOROPHYLL a
CHLOROPHYLLS
COELENTERATA
A phylum of small planktonic, cransparenc
invertebrates known as arrow-worms; they are ofcsn
water-mass Cracers.
worml ike
used as
The quantity of chlorine equivalent to the quantity of
halogens contained in 1 kg of seawater; nay be used to
determine seawacer salinity and density.
A specific chlorophyll pigment characteristic of higher
plants and algae; frequently used as a measure of
phytoplankton biomass.
A group of oil-soluble, green plant
as photoreceptors of light energy
primary productivity.
pigments which runccion
for photosynthesis and
COLIFORMS
CONTINENTAL RISE
A large diverse phylum of primarily marine animals, members
possessing two cell layers and an incomplete digestive
system, the opening of which is usually surrounded by
tentacles. This group includes hydroids, jellyfish, corals
and anemones.
Bacteria residing in the colons of mammals; generally us-3d
as indicators of fecal pollution.
A gentle slope with a generally smooth surface between the
Continental Slope and the deep ocean floor.
CONTINENTAL SHELF That part of the Continental Margin adjacent to a continent
extending from the low water line to a depth, generally
200m, where the Continental Shelf and the Continental Slope
j oin.
CONTINENTAL SLOPE That part of the Continental Margin consisting of the
declivity from the edge of the Continental Shelf down to
the Continental Rise.
CONTOUR LINE
CONTROLLING
DEPTH
COPEPODS
CRUSTACEA
CURRENT DROGUE
A line on a chart connecting points of equal elevation
above or below a reference plane, usually mean sea level.
The least depth in the approach or channel to an area, such
as a port, governing the maximal draft of vessels which can
enter.
A large diverse group of small planktonic crustaceans
representing an important link in oceanic food chains.
A class of arthropods consisting of animals with jointed
appendages and segmented exoskeletons composed of chitin.
This class includes barnacles, crabs, shrimps and lobsters.
A surficial current measuring assembly consisting of a
weighted current cross, underwater sail or parachute and an
attached surface buoy; it moves with the current so that
average current velocity and direction can be obtained.
6-3
-------
CURRENT METER
DECAPODA
DEMERSAL
DENSITY
DETRITIVORES
DETRITUS
DIATCMS
DIFFUSION
DINOFLAGELLATES
DISCHARGE PLUME
DISPERSION
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
DIVERSITY
(species)
An instrument for measuring the speed of a current, and
often the direction of flow.
The Largest order of crustaceans; members have five sets of
locomotor appendages, each joined to a segment of the
thorax; includes crabs, lobsters, and shrimps.
Living at or near the bottom of the sea.
The mass per unit volume of a substance, usually expressed
in grams per cubic centimeter (Ig water in reference to a
volume of 1 cc (§ 4°C) .
Animals which feed on detritus; also called deposit-
feeders .
Product of decomposition or disintegration;
and fecal material.
dead organisms
Microscopic phytoplankton characterized by a
overlapping silica plates. Sediment and
populations vary widely in response to
environmental conditions.
cell wall of
water column
changes in
Transfer of material (e.g., salt) or a property (e.g.,
temperature) under the influence of a concentration
gradient; the net movement is from an area of higher
concentration to an area of lower concentration.
A large diverse group of flagellated phytoplankton with or
without a rigid outer shell, some of which feed on
particulate matter. Some members of this group are
responsible for toxic red-tides.
The region of water affected by a discharge of waste which
can be distinguished from the surrounding water.
The dissemination of discharged matter over large areas by
natural processes (e.g., currents).
The quantity of oxygen (expressed in mg/liter, ml/liter or
parts per million) dissolved in a unit volume of water.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a key parameter in the assessment
of water quality.
A statistical measurement which generally combines the
measure of the total number of species in a given
environment and the number of individuals of each species.
Species diversity is high when it is difficult to predict
the species or the importance of a randomly chosen
individual organism, and low when an accurate prediction
can be made.
6-4
-------
DOMINANT SPECIES
EBB CURRENT,
EBB TIDE
ECHINODEEMS
ECONOMIC
RESOURCE ZONE
ECOSYSTEM
EDDY
ENDEMIC
ENTRAIN
EPIFAUNA
EPIPELAGIC
ESTUARY
FAUNA
F1NFISH
FLOCCULATION
FLOOD TIDE,
FLOOD CURRENT
A species or group of species which, because of their
abundance, size, or control of the energy flow, strongly
affect a community.
Tidal current moving away from land or down a tidal stream.
Exclusively marine animals which are distinguished by
radial symmetry, internal skeletons of calcareous plates,
and water-vaseular systems which serve the needs of
locomotion, respiration, nutrition, or perception; includes
starfishes, sea urchins, sea cucumbers and sand dollars.
The oceanic area within 200 nmi from shore in which che
adjacent coastal state possesses exclusive rights to che
living and non-living marine resources.
The organisms in a community together with their physical
and chemical environments.
A circular mass of water within a larger water oiass which
is usually formed where currents pass obstructions, either
between two adjacent currents flowing counter to each
other, or along che edge of a permanent current. An eddy
has a certain integrity and life history, circulating and
drawing energy from a flow of larger scale.
Restricted or peculiar to a locality or region.
To draw in and transport by the flow of a fluid.
Animals which live on or near the bottom of the sea.
Of, or pertaining to, that portion of the oceanic zone into
which enough light penetrates to allow photosynthesis;
generally extends from the surface to about 200m.
A semienclosed coastal body of water which has a free
connection to the sea, commonly the lower end of a river,
and within which the mixing of saline and fresh water
occurs.
The animal life of any location, region, or period.
Term used to distinguish "normal" fish (e.g., wi'th fins and
capable of swimming) from shellfish, usually in reference
to the commercially important species.
The process of aggregating a number of small, suspended
particles into larger masses.
Tidal current moving toward land, or up a tidal stream.
6-5
-------
FLORA
GASTROPODS
GYRE
HERBIVORES
HOPPER DREDGE
HYDROGRAPHY
ICHTHYOPLANKTON
INDICATOR SPECIES
INDIGENOUS
INFAUNA
INITIAL MIXING
IN SITU
INTERIM DISPOSAL
SITES
INVERTEBRATES
ISOBATH
ISOTHERMAL
LARVA
The plane life of any location, region, or period.
Molluscs which possess a distinct head (generally with eyes
and tentacles), a broad, flat foot, and usually a spiral
shell (e.g., snails).
A closed circulation system, usually larger than an eddy.
Animals which feed chiefly on plants.
A self-propelled vessel with capabilities to dredge, store,
transport, and dispose of dredged materials.
That science which deals with the measurement of the
physical features of waters and their marginal land areas,
with special reference to the factors which affect safe
navigation, and the publication of such information in a
form suitable for use by navigators .
That portion of the planktonic mass composed of fish eggs
and weakly motile fish larvae.
An organism so strictly associated with particular
environmental conditions that its presence is indicative of
the existence of such conditions.
Having originated in, being produced, growing, or living
naturally in a particular region or environment; native.
Aquatic animals which live in the bottom sediment.
Dispersion or diffusion of liquid, suspended particulate,
and solid phases of a waste material which occurs within 4
hours after dumping.
[Latin] In the original or natural setting (in the
environment) .
Ocean disposal sites tentatively approved for use by the
EPA.
Animals lacking a backbone or internal skeleton.
A line on a chart connecting points of equal depth below
mean sea level.
Approximate equality of temperature throughout a
geographical area.
A young and immature form of an organism which must usually
undergo one or more form and size changes before assuming
characteristic features of the adult.
6-6
-------
LITTORAL
LONGSHORE CURRENT
LORAN-C
Of or pertaining co che seashore, especially che regions
between cide Lines.
A current which flows in a direction parallel co a coast-
line.
Long Range Aid co Navigation, type C; low-frequency radio
navigation system having a range of approximately L, 500 mi
radius.
MAIN SHIP CHANNEL The designated shipping corridor leading into a harbor.
MAINTENANCE
DREDGING
MESOPELAGIC
MICRONUTRIENTS
MIXED LAYER
MLT
MLW
MOLLUSCA
MONITORING
NEKTON
NEMATODA
NERITIC
NEUSTON
NUISANCE SPECIES
Periodic dredging of a waterway, necessary for continued
use of the waterway.
Pertaining to depths of 200m to 1,000m below che ocean
surface.
Microelements, trace elements, or substances required in
minute amounts; essential for normal growth and development
of an organism.
The upper layer of che ocean which is well mixed by wind
and wave activity.
Mean Low cide; che average height of all low tides
measured over an 18.6-year period at a specific site.
Mean Low Water; the average height of all low waters at a
specific place.
A phylum of unsegmented animals most of which possess a
calcareous shell; includes snails, mussels, clams, and
oysters.
As used herein, observation of environmental effects of
disposal operations through biological and chemical data
collection and analyses.
Free swimming aquatic animals which move independently of
water currents.
A phylum of free-living and parasitic unsegmented worms;
found in a wide variety of habitats.
Pertaining to the region of shallow water adjoining the
seacoast, and extending from the low-tide mark to a depth
of about 200m.
Organisms which are associated with the upper 5 to 20 cm of
water; mainly composed of copepods and ichthyoplankton.
Organisms of no commercial value, which, because of
predation or competition, may be harmful to commercially
important organisms.
6-7
-------
NUTRIENT-LIGHT
REGIME
CMNIVOROUS
The overall combination of nutrients and light in the
environment as they relate to photosynthesis.
Pertaining to animals which feed on animal and plant
matter.
ORGANOHALOGEN
PESTICIDES
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
OXIDE
PARAMETER
PATHOGEN
PCB(s)
PELAGIC
PERTURBATION
PHOTIC ZONE
PHYTOPLANKTON
PLANKTON
PLUME
POLYCHAETA
Pesticides whose chemical constitution includes the
elements carbon and hydrogen, plus a common element of the
halogen family: bromine, chlorine, fluorine, or iodine.
One of the salts of orthophosphoric acid; an essential
nutrient for plant growth.
A binary chemical compound in which oxygen is combined with
another element, metal, nonmetal, gas, or radical.
Values or physical properties which describe the
characteristics or behavior of a set of variables.
An entity producing or capable of producing disease.
Polychlorinated biphenyl(s); any of several chlorinated
compounds having various industrial applications. PCS's
are highly toxic pollutants which tend to accumulate in the
environment.
Pertaining to water of the open ocean beyond the
Continental Shelf and above the abyssal zone.
A disturbance of a natural or regular system;
departures from an assumed steady state of a system.
any
The acidity or alkalinity of a solution, determined by the
negative logarithm to the base 10 of the hydrogen ion
concentration (in gram-atoms per liter), ranging from 0 to
14 (lower than 7 is acid, higher than 7 is alkaline).
The layer of a body of water that receives sufficient
sunlight for photosynthesis.
Minute passively floating plant life in a body of water;
the base of the food chain in the sea.
The passively floating or weakly swimming, usually minute
animal and plant life in a body of water.
A patch of turbid water, caused by the suspension of fine
particles following a disposal operation.
The largest class of the phylum Annelida (segmented worms);
benthic marine worms distinguished by paired, lateral,
fleshy appendages provided with bristles (setae) on most
segments.
6-8
-------
PRECIPITATE
PRIMARY
PRODUCTIVITY
PROTOZOANS
QUALITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
RECRUITMENT
RELEASE ZONE
RUNOFF
SALINITY
SEA STATE
SHELF WATER
SHELLFISH
SHIFRIDER
SHORT DUMPING
A solid which separates from a solution or suspension by
chemical or physical change.
The amount of organic matter synthesized by producer
organisms (primarily plants) from inorganic substances per
unit time and volume of water. Plant respiration may or
may not be subtracted (net or gross productivity,
respectively) .
Mostly microscopic, sing1°-eelled animals which constitute
one of the largest populations in the ocean. Protozoans
play a major role in the recycling of nutrients.
Pertaining to the non—numerical assessment of a parameter.
Pertaining to the numerical measurement of a parameter.
Addition to a population of organisms by reproduction or
immigration of new individuals.
An area defined by the locus of points lOOn from a vessel
engaged in dumping activities; will never exceed the tocai
surface area of the aumpsite .
That portion of precipitation upon land which ultimately
reaches streams, rivers, lakes and oceans.
The amount of salts dissolved in water; expressed in parts
per thousand ( /oo, or ppt).
The numerical or written description of wind-generated
waves on the surface of the sea; ranges from 1 (smooth) to
8 (mountainous) .
Water which originates in, or can be
Continental Shelf, differentiated by
temperature and salinity.
traced to the
charac terist ic
Any invertebrate, usually of commercial importance, having
a rigid outer covering, such as a shell or exoskeleton;
includes some molluscs and arthropods; term is the
counterpart of finfish.
A shipboard observer, assigned by the U.S. Coast Guard to
ensure that a waste-laden vessel is dumping in accordance
with permit specifications.
The premature discharge of waste from a vessel anyvhere
outside designated disposal sites. This may occur legally
under emergency circumstances, or illegally to avoid
hauling to a designated site.
6-9
-------
SLOPE WATER
SPECIES
STANDARD
ELUTRIATE
ANALYSIS
STANDING STOCK
SUBSTRATE
SURVEILLANCE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
THESMOCLINE
TRACE METAL OR
ELEMENT
TRANSMITTANCE
TREND ASSESSMENT
SURVEYS
TROPHIC LEVELS
TURBIDITY
VECTOR
Water which orgiaates from, occurs at, or can be traced to
the Continental Slope, differentiated by characteristic
temperature and salinity.
A group of morpho log-'cal ly similar organisms capable of
interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
A test used to determine the types and amounts of
constituents which can be extracted from a known volume of
sediment by mixing with a known volume of water.
The biomass or abundance of living material per unit volume
of water, or area of sea-bottora.
The solid material upon which an organism
which it is attached (e.g., rocks, sand).
1 ives, or to
Systematic observation of an area by visual, electronic,
photographic, or other means for the purpose of ensuring
compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permits, and
safety.
Finely divided particles of a solid temporarily suspended
in a liquid (e.g., soil particles in water) .
A vertical temperature gradient in some layer of a body of
water, which is appreciably greater than the gradients
above or below it; a layer in which such a gradient occurs.
An element found in the environment
quantities; usually includes metals
(1,000 ppm) or less, by weight, in the earth's crust
in extremely small
cons t itut ing 0.1%
In defining water clarity, an instrument which can transmit
a known quantity of light through a standard distance of
water to a collector. The percentage of the beam's energy
which reaches the collector is expressed as transraittance.
Surveys conducted over long periods to detect shifts in
environmental conditions within a region.
Discrete steps along a food chain in which energy is
transferred from the primary producers (plants) to
herbivores and finally to carnivores and decomposers.
Cloudy or hazy appearance in a naturally clear liquid
caused by a suspension of colloidal liquid droplets, fine
solids, or small organisms.
A straight or curved line representing both direction and
magnitude .
6-10
-------
WATER MASS A body of water, identified by its temperature-salinity
values, or chemical composition, consisting of a mixture of
two or more water types.
ZOOPLANKTON Weakly swimming animals whose distribution in the ocean is
ultimately determined by current movements.
6-11
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
3LM
C
°C
CE
CFR
DA
DAMOS
DMRP
DO
DOC
DOC
DO I
IIS
EPA
FDA
FWPCA
FWPCAA
g
hr
IEC
DtCO
k
kHz
km
kn
m
2
m
mg
mlt
mlw
fTjpi
MPRSA
Bureau of Land Management
Carbon
Degrees Centigrade
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Code of Federal Regulations
District Administrator (CE)
Disposal Area Monitoring System
Dredged Material Research Program
Dissolved Oxygen
U.S. Department of Commerce
dissolved organic carbon
U.S. Department of the Interior
environmental impact statement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Food and Drug Administration
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
gram(s)
hour(s)
Interstate Electronics Corporation
Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization
kilogram(s)
kilohertz
kilometer(s)
kno t(s )
meter(s)
square meter
milligram(s)
mean low tide
mean low water
millimeter(s)
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
6-13
-------
N
ng
NEPA
nmi
NMFS
NOAA
NOO
MTU
NUSC
DCS
ODMDS
PL
ppb
ppm
ppt
o ,
/oo
%
RA
s
SAI
TOC
TRIGOM
TSS
M
M8
Hg-at
umole
USCG
USGS
W
wt
yd
yd3
yr
north
nanogram
National Environmental Policy Act
nautical mile(s)
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Naval Oceanographic Office
Nephelometric turbidity units
Naval Underwater Systems Center
Outer Continental Shelf
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Public Law
parts per billion
parts per million
parts per thousand = /oo
parts per thousand
percent
Regional Administrator (EPA)
second(s)
Science Applications Inc.
total organic carbon
The Research Institute Gulf of Maine
total suspended solids
micron
microgram(s)
microgram atom(s)
microtnole
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Geological Survey
west
weight
yard(s)
cubic yard(s)
year(s)
6-14
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association. 1975. Standards Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 14th ed. Washington, DC.
Andrews, J.C. and P.R. Mott. 1967. Gray seals at Nar.tucket, Massachusetts.
J. Mammal. 48:657-658.
Apollonio, S. 1972. An atlas of the distributions of inorganic nutrients.
Maine Dept. of Sea and Shore Fisheries. DOE. M43.10 At614/972.
Baram, M.S., D. Rice, and W. Lee. 1978. Marine mining of the Continental
Shelf; legal, technical and environmental considerations. Ballinger
Publishing Company, J.3. Lippincott Company. Cambridge, MA. 301 pp.
Beardsley, R.C. and W.S. Brown. 1978. Winter circulation in the western Gulf
of Maine. Part 1. Cooling and water mass formation. J. Physical
Oceanography. 8:256-277.
Herman, B.D. 1972. Encylopedia of american shipwrecks. The Mariners Press,
Boston, MA.
1976. A bibliography of environmental information on che Continental
Slope—Canadian U.S. Border to Cape Hatteras, N'C. Research Inst- of che
Gulf of Maine to 3LM/Maine Min. Div.
BLM. See U.S. Department of Interior.
Bigelow, H.B. 1927. Physical oceanography of the Gulf of Maine. U.S.
Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Fisheries Bull. 40:511-1027.
1927. Plankton of the offshore waters of the Gulf of Maine. Bull. U.S.
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fisheries Bull. 40:1-509.
Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine.
Fishery Bull. 74. U.S. Fish Wild. Serv. Washington, DC. 577 pp.
Bokuniewicz, H.J., R.3. Gordon, and C.C. Pilbeam. 1976. Stress on the bottom
of an estuary. Nature. 257:575-577.
Boone, C.G., M.A. Granat, and M.P. Farrell. 1978. Aquatic disposal field
investigations, Columbia River Disposal Site, Oregon. Evaluative
summary. Dredged Material Research Program. U.S. Army, Corps of
Engineers Tech. Rep. D-77-30. Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Boulva, J. and I.A. McLaren. 1979. Biology of the harbor seal, Phoca
vitulina, in eastern Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 200:1-24.
Brown, A.C. and A.B. Currie. 1973. Tolerance of Bulla digitalis
(Prosobranchiata) to solutions of ammonium nitrate in natural seawater.
S. Afr. J. Sci- 69:219-220.
6-15
-------
Brown, W.S., and R.C. Beardsley. Winter circulation in the western Gulf of
Maine: Part 1. Cooling and water mass formation. J. Phys. Oceanog.
8:265-277.
Brown D.W., S. Ramos, M.Y. Uyeda, A.J. Friedman, and W.D. MacLeod, Jr. 1979.
Ambient-temperature extraction of hydrocarbons from marine sediment -
comparison with boiling-solvent extraction. In: L. Petrakis and F.T.
Weiss, eds., Petroleum in the Marine Environment. Advances in Chemistry
Series No. 185.
Buelow, R.W., B.H. Pringle, and J.L. Verber. 1968. Preliminary investigation
of waste disposal in the New York Bight. Northeast Marine Health
Sciences Laboratory, Bureau of Disease Prevention and Environmental
Control, Public Health Service. U.S. Dept. Health, Education, and
Welfare. 33 pp.
Bumpus, D.F. and L.M. Lauzier. 1965. Surface circulation on the Continental
Shelf off eastern North America between Newfoundland and Florida. Amer.
Geog. Soc. Serial Atlas of the Marine Environment Folio, 7:1-4.
Cabelli, V.J. and W.P. Heffernan. 1970a. Accumulation of Escherichia coli by
the Northern Quahaug. Appl. Microbiol. 12(2 ):239-244.
L970b. Elimination of bacteria by the soft shell clam, Mya arenaria.
J. Fish. Res. Bd . Canada. 27(9 ):1579-1587.
CE. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Chan, K.Y., S.H. Wong, and C.Y. Mak. 1979. Effects of bottom sediments on
the survival of Enterobacter aerogenes in seawater. Marine Poll. Bull.
10(7):205-210.
Chen, K.Y. and C.C. Wang. 1976. Water quality evaluation of dredged material
disposal from Los Angeles Harbor. Pages 155-186 in: Marine Studies of
San Pedro Bay, California: Part II, Environmental Engineering Program,
Univ. Southern California.
Coastal Planning Program, Maine State Planning Office. 1977. Maine coastal
inventory handbook. Coastal Planning Program. Maine State Planning
Office, Augusta, ME.
Cobb, S.J. 1976. The American lobster: the biology of Homarus americanus.
Mar. Tech. Rep 49. NOAA Sea Grant. University of Rhode Island.
Kingston, RI.
Conner, W.G., D. Aurand, M. Leslie, J. Slaughter, A. Amr, F.I. Ravenscroft.
1979. Disposal of dredged material within the New York District. The
MITRE Corporation under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
No: DACW51-C-77-0061.
DOI. See U.S. Department of Interior.
6-16
-------
Dow, R.L., F.W. Bell, and D.M. Harriman. 1975. Bioeconomic relacionships for
Che Maine lobster fishery with consideration of alternative management
schemes. NOAA Tech- Rep. NMFS SSRF-683.
Durkin, J.T. and S.J. Lipovsky. L977. Aquatic disposal field investigations,
Columbia River Disposal Site, Oregon. Appendix E: demersal fish and
decapod shellfish studies. Dredged Material Research Program. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Tech. Rep. D-77-30. Environmental Effects Laboratory,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Emery, K.O. and E. Uchupi. 1972. Western North Atlantic Ocean: topography,
rocks, structure, water, life and sediments. Ainer. Assoc. ?etr. Geol.,
Memoir. 17:1-532.
Engler, R.M. 1976. Environmental impacts of the aquatic disposal of dredged
material: fact and fancy. Pages 220-235 in: J.G.B. Herbich (ed.) Proc.
8th Dredging Seminar, Texas. Texas A&M Univ., Sea Grant Program, Rep.
No. TAMU-SG-77-102. 248 pp.
EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Energy Resources Company, Inc. 1978. New England OCS environmental
benchmark, draft final report. Volume II, Chapter IV. Submitted to
Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior. Washington DC.
628 pp.
1980. Results of petroleum hydrocarbon analyses of sediment samples
collected ac the Portland Dredged Material Disposal Sice. Data Report
prepared for Interstate Electronics Corporation.
ERCO. See Energy Resources Company, Inc.
Faas, R.W. and C.A. Nittrouer. 1976. Postdepositional facies development in
the fine-grained sediments of the Wilkinson Basin, Gulf of Maine.
J. Sed. Petrology. 46(2):337-344.
Fefer, S.I. and P.A. Schettig (eds.). 1980. An ecological characterization
of coastal Maine (north and east of Cape Elizabeth). Dept. of the
Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region.
Farrel, S.C. 1972. Coastal processes, historical changes, and the
post-Pleistocene geologic record of Saco Bay, Maine. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ.
of Massachusetts.
Fisher, E.G. 1970. Factors affecting the survival of enteric organisms in
the sea. Pages 107-119 in: A.A. Johnson (ed.), Water pollution in the
greater New York area. Gordon and Breach, Science Publications. New
York, NY.
Flemer, D.A. 1970. Phytoplankton. In: Gross, Physical and biological
effects of overboard spoil disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay. Univ. of
Maryland.
6-17
-------
Folk, R.L. 1978. Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Hemphill Publishing Co.,
Texas, 192 pp.
Gerba, C.P. and J.S. McLeod. 1976. Effect of sediments on the survival of
Escherichia coli in marine waters. App. and Environ. Microbiol.
32(1):114-120.
Gibbs, R.J. 1977. Effect of combustion temperature and time and of the
oxidation agent used in organic carbon and nitrogen analysis of sediments
and dissolved organic material. J. Sed. Petrology, 47(2):547-560.
Gosner, K.L. 1971. Guide to identification of marine and estuarine
invertebrates. Wiley-Interscience. 693 pp.
Gray, J.S. 1974. Animal-sediment relationships. Pages 223-262 in: H.
Barnes (ed.), Oceanography and marine biology, an annual review. Vol.
12. Hafner, NY.
Hapkins and Garfield. 1979. Development of Maine intermediate water. J.
Mar. Res. 33:103-139.
Harris, L.G. and A.C. Mathieson. 1977. Biological oceanography. Pages 17-54
in: J.W. Padan (ed.), New England offshore mining environmental study
(Project NOMES). NOAA Special Report, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Boulder,
CO. 140 pp.
Hirsch, N.D., L.H. DiSalvo, and R. Peddicord. 1978. Effects of dredging and
disposal on aquatic organisms. DMRP Tech. Rep. DS-78-5. Environmental
Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. 41 pp.
Hjulstrom, F. 1939. Transportation of detritus by moving water. Pages 5-31
in: P.O. Task (ed.), Recent Marine Sediments. SEPM. Tulsa, OK.
Holliday, B.W., B.H. Johnson, and W.A. Thomas. 1978. Predicting and
monitoring dredged material movement. Dredged Material Research Program
Tech. Rep. DS-78-3. Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Holton, R.L., N.H. Cutshall, L.I. Gordon, and L.F. Small. 1978. Aquatic
disposal field investigations, Columbia River Disposal Site, Oregon.
Appendix B: Water column, primary productivity and sediment studies.
Dredged Material Research Program Tech. Rep. D-77-30. Environmental
Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Hulbert, E.M. 1968. Stratification mixing in coastal waters of the western
Gulf of Maine during summer. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada.
25(12):2609-2621.
1970. Relation of heat budget to circulation in Casco Bay, Maine.
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 27(12):2255-2260.
6-18
-------
Hulbert, M.H. and D.N. Given. L975. Geocechnical and chemical property
relationships. Statistical Bull. Dartmouth, Canada.
Hutchinson, A. L975. An appraisal of the fishery and wildlife resources of
the greater Portland regional planning unit. Dept. of Inland Fisheries
and Game, State of Maine, Augusta, ME.
1C SAP. International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. 1974.
Statistical Bull. Dartmouth, Canada.
IEC - See Interstate Electronics Corporation.
Interstate Electronics Corporation. 1980. Cceanographic sampling and
analytical procedures manual. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (Contract #68-01-4610).
Katona, S.K. , H.E. Winn, and W.W. Steiner. 1977. Marine mammals. Pages
XIV-1 to 169 in: Center for Natural Areas; A Summary of Environmental
Information on the Continental Shelf from the Bay of Fundy to Cape
Hatteras. Bureau of Land Management, New York..
Larsen, I.e. 1979. The shallow-water niacrobenthos of a northern Mew England
estuary. Mar. 3iol. 55(l):69-78.
Larson, P. 1979. Incertidal benthic invertebrates of the Maine coast. Daca
Report. Maine Coastal Program, Natural Resources Planning Division.
State of Maine, Augusta ME.
1979a. Testimony before EPA Region I for NOAA, New England Fish. Mang.
Council and U.S. FWS, on the benthic invertebrate community of the Quoddy
Region. NPDES Permit Application of the Pittston Corp., ME.
Lee, G.F., J.M. Lopez, and G.M. Mariani. 1976. Leaching and bioassay studies
on the significance of heavy metals in dredged sediments. Univ. Texas,
Center for Environmental Studies, Dallas, TX. 68 pp.
Lee, G.F., M.D. Piwoni, J.M. Lopez, G.M. Mariani, J.S. Richardson, D.H. Homer,
and F. Saleh. 1975. Research study for the development of dredged
material disposal criteria. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. 381 pp.
Light, M. and S.J. Henderson. 1974. Oceanography in the Gulf of Maine and
adjacent waters in support of the International Commission for Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries, January 1968, January-February 1969. Oceanograpahic
Report No. CG 373-65. U.S. Coast Guard, Oceanographic Unit, Washington,
DC.
Liu, O.C., H.R. Seraichekas, and B.L. Murphy. 1966. Viral pollution of
shellfish. In: Some basic facts of uptake. Soc. for Exp. Biol. and Med.
Proc. 123:481-487.
Mahoney, J.B., F.H. Midlige, and D.G. Deuel. 1973. A fin rot disease of
marine and euryhaline fishes in the New York Bight. Trans. Am. Fish.
Soc. 102:596-605.
6-19
-------
May, R.M. L975. Patterns of species abundance and diversity. Pages 81-120
in: M.L. Cody and J. N. Diamond (eds.)> Ecology and evolution of communi-
ties. Belknap Press. 545 pp.
Martin, L. 1979. Maine's Critical Areas Program 1979 Report. Publication of
the Maine State Planning Office.
Meade, R.H., P.L. Sachs, F.T. Manheim, J.C. Hathaway, and D.W. Spencer. 1975.
Sources of suspended matter in waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight.
J. Sed. Petrology. 46(3):171-188.
Moore, H.G. 1962. Marine ecology. Wiley, NY,
Murray, L.A. and M.G. Norton. 1979. The composition of dredged spoils dumped
at sea from England and Wales. Fish. Res. Tech. Rep. MAFF Direct. Fish.
Res., Lowestoft. (52):1-10.
Natarajan, K.V. 1970. Toxicity of ammonia to marine diatoms. J. Wat. Poll.
Cont. Fed. 42:R184-R190.
Naval Underwater Systems Center. 1978. Draft report baseline environmental
measurements at the Proposed Portland Disposal Site. 48 pp.
1979. Disposal area monitoring system DAMOS annual data report - 1978.
Supplement B Portland Disposal Site. 44 pp.
1974b. Preliminary examination of potential dredge spoil disposal sites
beyond the 3-mile limit, Casco Bay, Maine. Appendix II A-4.
Nichols, F.H. 1970. Benthic polychaete assemblages and their relationship to
the sediment in Port Madison, Washington. Mar. Biol. 6:48-57.
NOAA. 1976a. Catch of ALBATROSS IV on ground fish survey 76-2, April 13-May
5, 1976. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA, NMFS. Northeast Fisheries
Center, Woods Hole, MA.
1976b. Catch of ALBATROSS IV on bottom trawl survey 76-09, November
9-23, 1976. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA, NMFS. Northeast Fisheries
Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1974a. A dredge spoil disposal site beyond the
3-mile limit, Casco Bay, Maine, recently designated for study and
consideration. Addendum to Technical Appendix II A-4 Document II.
1974b. Preliminary examination of potential dredge spoil disposal sites
beyond the 3-mile limit, Casco Bay, Maine. Appendix II A-4.
Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC). 1978. Draft report baseline
environmental measurements at the Proposed Portland Disposal Site.
48 pp.
1979. Disposal area monitoring system (DAMOS) annual data report - 1978.
Supplement B Portland Disposal Site. 44 pp.
6-20
-------
O'Connor, J. 1976. Contaminant effects on biota of the New York Bight.
Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst. 28:50-63.
O'Connor, J.M., D.A. Neumann, and J.A. Sherk, Jr. 1977. Sublethal effects of
suspended sediments on estuarine fish. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Tech. Paper No. 77-3.
Oldale, R.N. and E. Uchupi. 1970. The glaciated shelf off the Northeastern
United States. U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 700-B, p. B167-B173.
Oldale, R.N., E. Uchupi, and K.E. Prada. 1973. Sedimentary framework of the
western Gulf of Maine and the southeastern Massachusetts offshore area.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 757, p. 1-10.
Oliver, J.S., P.M. Slattery, L.W. Hulberg, and J.W. Nybakken. 1977. Patterns
of succession in benthic infaunal communities following dredging and
dredged material disposal in Monterey Bay. Dredged Material Research
Program Tech. Rep. D-77-27. Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Aray
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Osterroht, C. 1977. Development of a method for the extraction and
determination of non-polar, dissolved organic substances in seawater.
J. Chromatography 101:289.
Padan, J.W. 1977. New England offshore mining environmental study (Project
NOMES). NOAA Special Report. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Boulder, CO.
Parker, A. 1973. Some chemical, mineralogical, and geotechnical analyses of
four cores from the Wilkinson Basin. Deep-Sea Res. 20:551-554.
Pequegnat, W.E., D.D. Smith, R.M. Darnell, 3.J. Presley, and R.O. Reid. 1978.
An assessment of the potential impact of dredged material disposal in the
open ocean. Dredged Material Research Program Tech. Rep. D-73-2.
Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Perlow, M., Jr. and A.F. Richards. 1977. Influence of shear velocity on vane
shear strength. J. Geotechnical Engineering Division. American Society
of Engineers Proceedings. 103(1):19-32.
Phillips, D.J.H. I976a. The common mussel Mytilus edulis as an indicator of
pollution by zinc, cadmium, lead and copper. In: Effects of environ-
mental variables on uptake of metals. Mar. Biol. 38:59-69.
I976b. The common mussel Mytilus edulis as an indicator of pollution by
zinc, cadmium, lead and copper. II. Relationship of metals in the
mussel to those discharged by industry. Mar. Biol. 38:71-30.
Prager, J.C. 1974. Factors influencing estuarine niicrobiota. Pages 48-81
in: N.I. Sax (ed.), Industrial pollution. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. NY.
6-21
-------
Prater, N.L. and M.A. Anderson. 1977. A 96-hour sediment bioassay of Duluth
and Superior harbor basins (Minnesota) using Hexagenia limbata, Asellus
communis, Daphnia magna, Pimpephales promelas as test organisms. Bull.
Environ. Contain, and Toxicol. 18:159-169.
Rhoads, B.C. 1974. Organism-sediment relations on the muddy sea floor.
Pages 263-300 in: H. Barnes (ed.), Oceanography and marine biology, an
annual review. Hafner, NY.
Richards, A.F. 1970. Geotechnical ocean engineering test areas. 6th Annual
Conf. Preprints, Marine Tech. Soc. Washington DC. 2:1355-1363.
Richardson, M.D., A.G. Carey, J.A. Colgate, and W.A. Colgate. 1977. Aquatic
field investigations, Columbia River Disposal Site, Oregon. Appendix C:
the effects of dredged material disposal on benthic assemblages. Dredged
Material Research Program Tech. Rep. D-77-30. Environmental Effects
Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Riley, J.P. and R. Chester. 1971. Introduction to marine chemistry.
Academic Press. London,, England. 465 pp.
Rittenhouse, G. 1933. A suggested modification of the pipette method: J.
Sed. Petrology. 3:44-45.
Rogers, B.A. 1969. The tolerance of fish to suspended solids. M.A. Thesis,
Univ. of Rhode Island.
Ross, D.A. 1970. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the United
States—heavy minerals of the continental margin from southern Nova
Scotia to northern New Jersey. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 529G. 40 pp.
SAI. Science Applications, Inc. 1980a. Disposal area monitoring system
progress DAMOS report March 15-May 15, 1980. DAMOS Contribution f/13. 52
pp.
1980b. Disposal area monitoring system progress report May 15-July 30
1980. DAMOS Contribution #14. 73 pp.
Saila, S.B., S.D. Pratt, and T.T. Polgar. 1972. Dredged spoil disposal in
Rhode Island Sound. Tech. Rep. No. 2. Univ. of Rhode Island. 48 pp.
Schlee, J. , S. Pratt, and M. Richard. 1970. Atlantic Continental Shelf and
Slope of the United States—gravels of the northeastern part. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 529H. 39 pp.
Sergeant, D.E. and H.D. Fisher. 1957. The smaller cetacean of Eastern
Canadian waters. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 14:83-115.
Sherk, J.A., J.M. O'Connor, D.A. Neuman, R.D. Prince, and F.V. Wood. 1974.
Effects of suspended and deposited sediments on estuarine organisms,
Phase II. Prince Frederick, Univ. of Maryland.
6-22
-------
Sherman, K. 1968. Seasonal and areal distribution of zooplankton in coastal
waters of Gulf of Maine, 1965 and 1966. U.S. Fish. Wild. Serv. Spec.
Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 562. 11 pp.
1970. Seasonal and areal distribution of zooplankton in coastal waters
of the Gulf of Maine, 1967 and 1968. U.S. Fish. Wild. Serv. Spec. Sc.
Rep. Fish. No. 594. 8 pp.
Spencer, D.W. and P.L. Sachs. 1970. Some aspects of the distribution,
chemistry, and mineralogy of suspended matter in the Gulf of Maine.
Mar. Geol. 9:117-136.
Stern, E.M. and W.B. Stickle. 1978. Effects of turbidity and suspended
material in aquatic environments: literature review. Tech. Rep.
D-78-21, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Stephenson, M.D, M. Martin, S.E. Lange, A.R. Flegal, J.H. Martin. 1979.
California mussel watch, 1977-1978. II: Trace metal concentrations in
the California mussel Mytilus californianus. Water Qual. Mon. Rep. No.
79-22.
Strickland, J.P.ti. and T.R. Parsons. 1968. A practical handbook of seawater
analysis. Bull. Fish. Res. 3d. Canada. 167:1-311.
Strugeon, R.E., S.S. Herman, A. Desaulniers, and D.S. Russell. L9SO.
Pre-concentration of trace metals from sea-water for determination by
graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Atlanta.
27:85-94.
Sullivan, B.K. and D. Hancock. 1977. Zooplankton and dredging: research
perspectives from a critical review. Water Resources Bull. 13:461-467.
Swartz, R.K., W.A. DeBen, and F.A. Cole. 1979. A bioassay for the coxicity
of sediment to marine macrobenthos. J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed. 51:944-950.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1977. Ocean disposal of harbor dredged materials in Hawaii.
Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Shafter,
Hawaii. Tetra Tech Rep. TC 852. 154 pp.
Thompson, E.P. and D.L. Harris. 1972. A wave climatology for U.S. coastal
waters. Coastal Engineering Research Center Kingman Bldg. Ft. Belvoir,
VA. Reprint, p. 1-72.
TRIGOM. The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine. 1974. A socioeconomic
and environmental inventory of the North Atlantic region. U.S.
Dept. of Interior. Bureau of Land Management Contract 08550-CT3-8.
1976. Summary of environmental information on the Continental Slope from
the Canadian/United States border to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.
Chapters 1 through 6. U.S. Dept. of Interior. Bureau of Land
Management. NYOCS-01A. 353 pp.
6-23
-------
Uchupi, E. 1966. Structural framework of the Gulf of Maine. J. Geophys.
Res. 71:3013-3028.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. National shoreline study, regional
inventory report. North Atlantic Region, Volume I. U.S. Army Engineer
Division, No. Atlantic Corps of Engineers. New York, NY. 4 pp.
U.S. Department of the Army. 1977. Draft environmental impact statement,
maintenance dredging, Portland Harbor, Portland, Maine. New England
Division, Corps of Engineers. Waltham, MA. Jan. 1977.
1979a. Draft Supplement environmental impact statement, maintenance
dredging, Portland Harbor, Portland, Maine. New England Division, Corps
of Engineers. Waltham, MA. Mar. 1979.
1979b. Final environmental impact statement, maintenance dredging,
Portland Harbor, Portland, Maine. New England Division, Corps of
Engineers. Waltham, MA.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Irregular. Climatography of the United States, No. 20-17.
Asheville, NC.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1977. Final environmental statement for
proposed Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sale offshore the
North Atlantic States. OCS Sale No. 42. Bureau of Land Management. N'ew
York, NY.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Analysis of pesticide residues
in human and environmental samples, a compilation of methods selected for
use in pesticide monitoring programs. EPA, Washington, DC.
1976. Quality criteria for water. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC. 256 pp.
1977. Interim methods for the sampling and analysis of priority
pollutants and fish tissues. Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH.
1979. Manual of methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Center,
Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977.
Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material into
Ocean Waters. Implementation Manual for Section 103 of PL 92-532.
Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Second printing, Apr. 1978.
Vermersch, J.A., R.C. Beardsley, and W.S. Brown. 1979. Winter circulation in
the Western Gulf of Maine: Part 2. Current and pressure observations.
J. Phys. Oceanog. 9:768-784.
6-24
-------
Verber, J.L. 1972. Shellfish borne disease outbreaks. Northeast Tech. Unit,
Davisville, RI. 17 pp.
Waters, J.H. 1967. Gray seal remains from southern New England archeological
sites. J. Mammal. 48:139-141.
Weiss, C.M. 1951. Adsorption of _E. coli on river and estuarine silts. Water
Poll. Contr. Fed. Jour. 23(2 ):227-237.
West, R.H. and P.G. Hatcher. 1980. Polychlorinated biphenyls in sewage
sludge and sediments of the New York Bight. Mar. Poll. Bull. 11:126-129.
West, R.H., P.G. Hatcher, and D.K. Atwood. 1976. Polychlorinated biphenyls
and DDT's in sediments and sewage sludge of the New York Bight.
Environmental Research Laboratories, NOAA, U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
Washington, DC. 42 pp.
Windom, H.L. 1972. Environmental aspects of dredging in estuaries. J.
Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering Div. ASCE, NY. 98:475-487.
1975. Water-quality aspects of dredging and dredge-spoil disposal in
estuarine environments. Pages 559-571 in: L.E. Cronin (ed.), Estuarine
Research. Vol. 2. Academic Press, NY.
1976. Environmental aspects of dredging in the coastal zone. CRC
Critical Rev. in Environ. Control. 6:91-109.
Wright, T.D. 1978. Aquatic dredged material disposal impacts. Tech. Rep.
DS-78-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS.
Young, J.S. and J.B. Pearce. 1975. Shell disease in crabs and lobsters from
New York Bight. Mar. Poll. Bull. 6:101-105.
Ziskowski, J. and R. Mirchelano. 1975. Fin erosion in winter flounder. Mar.
Poll. Bull. 6:26-29.
6-25
-------
Appendix A
SURVEY METHODS, RESULTS, AND INTERPRETATIONS
A-i
-------
Appendix A
CONTENTS
Section
METHODS
BIOLOGY
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
A-l Station Locations for the EPA/IEC Survey of
Portland, Maine ODMDS A-2
TABLES
Number
A-l Survey Sampling Requirements for Portland, Maine ODMDS
and Vicinity A-4
A-2 Laboratories Performing Analysis of Samples from
Portland, Maine ODMDS A-5
A-3 Water Column Parameters A-9
A-4 Middepth Levels of Dissolved Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and
Dissolved Particulate Trace Metals A-10
A-5 Sediment Trace Metals, Oil and Grease, TOC, and Grain Size .... A-12
A-6 Sediment Trace Metals, Oil and Grease, TOC, and Grain Size .... A-13
A-7 Trace Metal Concentrations in Sediments A-14
A-8 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Sediments A-15
A-9 Hydrocarbon Analyses of Marine Sediment Samples A-15
A-10 Levels of Trace Metals in Crustacean Tissues
Collected from the Existing Site A-16
A-ll Abundances of the Dominant Infauna Within Each Station,
Collected at the Existing Site in June 1979 A-18
A-L2 Abundances of the Dominant Infauna Species Within Each Station,
Collected at the Existing Site in April 1980 A-19
A-13 Abundances of the Epibenthic Species Within
Each Habitat Type at the Existing Site A-21
A-iii
-------
Appendix A
SURVEY METHODS, RESULTS, AND INTERPRETATIONS
Field surveys at the Portland, Maine ODMDS were conducted between 15 and. 19
June 1979, and between 8 and 11 April 1980, by Interstate Electronics
Corporation (IEC) under contract to EPA (Contract -Number 68-01-4610). The
purpose of the surveys was to collect biological, chemical, geological, and
physical oceanographic data to assess the effects of dredged material disposal
on the marine environment and to augment existing information for the area. A
major consideration of survey design was to assess whether any adverse effects
measured within the ODMDS were detectable outside of the site boundaries.
The standard IEC/EPA survey program was planned for the first survey in
June 1979. Because of extensive rock outcrops on the seafloor, weather, and
equipment conditions, the first survey sampling was limited to the water
column at all stations, and box cores at Stations 4 and 7. Based on the
information obtained in 1979 about the seafloor at the Existing Site, a
revised survey plan to examine the biota associated with the rock outcrops was
developed. In 1980 sediment samples were collected at Stations 1 and 7
(Figure A-l). In addition, eight new stations were established in and around
the Point Disposal location (PDL) in the topographically complex area to
collect videotape and black and white photographs for analysis of the epifauna
(Figure B-l).
Physical/chemical and biological (infauna) survey results and discussions
are presented herein; additional biological data (epifauna) are discussed in
Appendix B, and these discussions are summarized in Chapter 3. Methods of
data collection, analysis, and procedures are presented in the following
sections.
METHODS
The first survey operation (June 1979) was conducted using the Ocean Survey
Vessel ANTELOPE; the second survey (April 1980) was conducted from the RV
A-l
-------
1980 SAMPLES
43-34.2'
43'34.0'N
1980 SAMPLES
6-1
N
43-32.8'
43'32.b'N
7-11
Nautical Mile
Figure A-l. Station Locations for the EPA/IZC
Survey of Portland, Maine ODMDS (June 1979 and April 1980)
A-2
-------
EDGERTON (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Loran-C or radar range and
bearing positioning were used for navigation providing accuracy within
0.25 nmi.
Stations I through 5 were located inside the ODMDS, and Stations 6 to 9
were positioned outside the site as controls (Figure A-l). Due .to the rocky
substrate, replicated bottom samples were obtained only at Stations 1 and 7,
with a single cast at Station 4. Sample requirements, coordinates, and water
depths for all stations are presented in Table A-l.
Several physical and chemical oceanographic measurements were performed
aboard the ANTELOPE (June 1979). Benthic video tapes and still photographs
were taken from the EDGERTON (April 1980); all other detailed chemical,
geological, and biological analyses were performed at shore-based laboratories
listed in Table A-2.
Sampling equipment, procedures, and preservation methods were in accordance
with the "Oceanographic Sampling and Analytical Procedures Manual" (IEC,
L980). A summary of these methods is presented in the following sections.
WATER COLUMN MEASUREMENTS
Shipboard Procedures
Conductivity and temperatures profiles were measured with a Plessey CTD,
and data were stored on 9-track disks. A rosette sampler equipped with
30-liter Go-Flo bottles was used to collect surface and near-bottom samples
for suspended solids and dissolved oxygen, and for salinity and temperature
calibration samples; middepth samples were collected for analysis of dissolved
and particulate trace metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHC). Salinity
samples were analyzed with a Beckman salinometer. Surface and bottom water
temperatures were measured using reversing or bucket thermometers. Turbidity
was measured with a Hach laboratory turbidimeter; dissolved oxygen was
determined using a modified Winkler method (Strickland and Parsons, (1968);
and pH was measured with a Beckman pH meter. Water samples for total
suspended solids and trace metals (particulate and dissolved) analyses were
A-3
-------
TABLE A-l
SURVEY SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR PORTLAND, MAINE ODMDS AND VICINITY
WATER COLUMN
INSTRUMENT
ARRAY
ONE DROP
PER
STATION
ROSETTE WATER SAMPLER
ONE DROP PER STATION
SURFACE 4 30TTQM
STANDARD GO- FLO
MI (WATER
TEFLON- LINED
GO- FLO
SEDIMENT STATIONS
SOX CORER
TWO DROPS
PER STATION
CORE SAMPLE
/ t^/ / .-N",
3! OTA
6CX CORER
FIVE CROPS
*>£R STATION
CORE SAMPLE
LOBSTER POTS
LOBSTER/CSA8
TISSUE
001
002
OG3
00 J
COS
G06
007
008
009
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* | *
*
t
NO SAMPLES
NO SAMPLES
,'10
*
*
SAMPLES
* T
r 1 t
t
-* t
* T
T
r
t
T
*
*
t
f
*T
NUMBER
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
DEPTH
001
43°34.;'N
70°02.0'W
42.7m
002
43°33.6'N
70°01.3'W
50.3m
003
43°34.6'N
70°01.3'W
43.3ra
CO*
43034.5'iN
70°OZ.7'W
42.7m
005
43°33.6'N
70°02.7'W
44. 5m
006
43°33.1'M
70°03.3'y
40.0m
007
43°33.i'N
70°00.5'U
53.5ra
008
43°35.21N
70°03.3'W
30.5m
009
43°35.2"1
70°00.5'W
48.3m
NOTES; * Collected in June 1979
t Collected in April 1980
(1)Composite sample from both box cores
(2) Two subsamples from one box core at each designated station
(3) Lobster pots will be substituted for trawl/dredge
A-4
-------
TABLE A-2
LABORATORIES PERFORMING ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM PORTLAND, MAINE ODMDS
Biology
Taxon, Salem, MA
* Donald Reish,
Long Beach, CA
Chemistry
ERGO, Cambridge, MA
* LFE, Richmond, CA
Geology
ERGO, Cambridge, MA
* Denotes quality control laboratory
transferred from Go-Flo bottles to 2-liter pressure filtration bottles, then
filtered through Nucleopore filters. The filtrate was collected for dissolved
trace metals analysis in precleaned bottles acidified with Ultrex nitric acid.
«
Measured water volumes were pressure-fed directly from Go-Flo bottles through
Amberlite XAD resin columns for extraction of CHC's (Osterroht, 1977).
Filters for particulate trace metals and suspended solids, and resin columns
for CHC's, were processed in a positive pressure clean hood and frozen until
analyzed.
Laboratory Methods
Total suspended solids were determined gravimetrically on an electrobalance
(Meade et al., 1975). Filters containing particulate trace metal samples were
leached for 2 hours with IN Ultrex nitric acid. Leachates were analyzed for
Cd and Pb by graphite furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry (AAS), and
for Hg by cold-vapor AAS (EPA, 1979).
Dissolved Hg was analyzed by cold vapor AAS following an acid-permanganate
digestion and reduction with hydroxylamine sulfate and stannous sulfate (EPA,
1979). Dissolved Cd and Pb were concentrated using a chelation-solvent
extraction method (Sturgeon et al., 1980) and analyzed by graphite furnace
AAS.
CHC's were eluted from resin columns with acetonitrile. The elutriate was
extracted three times with hexane, evaporated to near dryness, fractionated on
florisil columns, and analyzed by electron-capture gas chromatography
A-5
-------
(Oscerroht, 1977). The chromatogram was scanned for presence of polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCS) (Arochlor 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, and
1262), and various pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, DDT) and
derivatives 0BHC, ODD, DDE, and heptachlor expoxide).
GEOCHEMISTRY AND GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Shipboard Procedures
2
Fifty grams of sediment were removed from 0.06 m box cores at each station
sampled (see Table A-l) and frozen for grain size analysis. Sediment samples
for geochemical analyses (trace metals, oil and grease, cotal organic carbon
[TOG] and CHC's) were collected from the surface 2 cm of two cores per
station, stored in acid-cleaned Teflon jars, and frozen.
Laboratory Methods
Sediment grain size was determined by washing sediment samples through
2,000- and 62-um mesh sieves to separate gravel, sand, and silt/clay fractions
following a procedure described by Folk (1978). Sand/gravel fractions were
separated with 1 phi (0) interval sieves, dried, and weighed. The silt/clay
fractions were analyzed using the pipette method (Rittenhouse, 1933).
Trace metals (Cd and Pb) were leached from 5 to lOg of sediments for 2
hours with 25 ml of IN nitric acid, and analyzed by graphite furnace AAS.
Mercury was leached from 5 to lOg of sediment at 95 °C with aqua regia and
potassium permanganate, reduced using hydroxylamine sulfate and stannous
sulfate, and analyzed by cold-vapor AAS (EPA, 1979).
Oil and grease were extracted from lOOg sediment samples with an
acetone-hexane mixture, dried, and quantified gravimetrically according to the
method of American Public Health Association (APHA) (1975). TOG in sediments
was measured with a Perkin-Elmer Model 240 Elemental Analyzer (Gibbs, 1977).
CHC's were soxhlet extracted from sediment samples using a 1:1 acetone-
hexane solvent. The extract was evaporated, cleaned on a florisil column,
A-6
-------
fractionated on a silicic acid column, and analyzed by electron capture gas
chromatography (EPA, 1974). An additional acid cleanup step was required for
analysis of PCB's. Petroleum hydrocarbons were extracted from sediments with
a methylene dichloride-methanol azeotropic mixture, and analyzed by column and
glass capillary gas chromatography (Brown et al., 1979).
Elutriate analyses were performed in accordance with the specifications of
EPA/CE (1977). Sediments and unfiltered disposal site water were mixed at a
1:4 ratio, and mechanical- and air-agitated for 30 minutes. After a 1-hour
settling period, test water was filtered, acidified with Ultrex hydrochloric
acid, and analyzed for trace metals using techniques described above.
BIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS (Including Tissue Chemistry)
Shipboard Procedures
Five macrofaunal samples were collected at Stations 4 and 7 (June 1979) and
2
Stations 1 and 7 (April 1980) using a 0.06 m box core and washed through a
0.5-mm screen; organisms were preserved in 10% formalin in seawater and stored
until analysis- Two 3.5-cm diameter subcores were taken from one box core at
Station 4 during the June 1979 survey, and preserved for enumeration of
meiofauna.
Lobster traps were used in 1979 and 1980 to collect crustaceans for
analysis of tissue concentrations of CMC's and trace metals. Crustaceans were
sorted in stainless steel trays and enumerated. Specimens were transferred
from the trays to acid-rinsed plastic buckets, and then into clean plastic
bags and frozen for trace metal analyses. Additional specimens were
transferred to stainless steel buckets with stainless steel forceps, wrapped
in aluminum foil, placed in polyethylene bags, and frozen for CHC analysis.
Laboratory Methods
Six dominant macrofaunal species were selected by Interstate biologists for
enumeration in all samples collected. Selection of species was based on the
inspection of initial laboratory data (species abundance throughout the site),
A-7
-------
feeding type, and known association with environmental conditions, parti-
cularly substrates. Each of the six dominant species was enumerated in all
five station replicates, and mean species abundances were calculated for each
station. Nematodes and harpacticoid copepods were separated from the
meiofauna samples and counted. All samples were transferred, to 70% alcohol
for storage.
Analysis of Cd and Pb concentrations in tissues followed techniques
described by EPA (1977). Approximately 5 to lOg of homogenized tissue were
digested with nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide while heated. The digests
were then evaporated, diluted to volume with deionized water, and analyzed
with flame or flameless AAS. Analyses of Hg concentrations in tissue required
digestion of an 8g to lOg sample with concentrated nitric and sulfuric acids
and potassium permanganate, reduction of the ionized mercury with hydro-
xylamine and scannous sulfates, and analysis with cold-vapor AAS (EPA, L979).
Tissue analyses for CHC's required homogenization of 50g of tissue wich
sodium sulface, extraction wich hexane, cleanup, fractionation, and analysis
wich electron capture gas chromatography (EPA, 1974).
COMPUTER DATA ENTRY AND ANALYSIS
All data were entered into Che Interstate computerized Oceanic Data and
Environmental Evaluation Program (ODEEP) data base. Statistical analyses
included calculation of means, variances, correlations, and analysis of
variance. These statistics were run for the various partitions in the data:
surveys, stations, station depth, and cast number for each variable analyzed.
Correlations were run between parameter values measured in individual sediment
samples (casts).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Water Column Characteristics
In June 1979 surface waters were warmer and less saline Chan bottom waters
(Table A-3). Temperatures varied only slightly for both surface
A-8
-------
TABLE A-3
WATER COLUMN PARAMETERS (EPA/IEC SURVEY, JUNE 1979)
Station
1
6
7
8
9
Sample
Depth
(m)
2
11
55
3
18
42
2
13
20
90
2
6
15
2
14
33
Temperature
(°C)
11.60
-
6.09
11.05
-
6.20
11.09
-
-
5.45
11.18
-
6.78
11.30
-
6.20
Salinity
,o , \
( /oo)
30.850
-
32.204
30.790
-
32.156
30.905
-
-
32.376
30.684
-
31.793
30.937
-
32.106
Total
Suspended Solids
(mg/liter)
0.14
-
0.34
0.44
-
0.53
0.59
0.37
0.68
-
0.21
0.56
0.18
0.75
0.27
0.54
Turbidity
(NTU)
0.59
0.42
0.66
0.42
0.28
0.32
0.42
-
-
0.76
0.58
-
0.27
0.51
0.39
0.41
Dissolved
Oxygen
(ml/liter)
6.10
-
6.86
6.16
'
6.84
6.16
-
-
6.95
6.15
-
6.77
6.13
-
6.84
Dissolved
Oxygen
(% Saturation)
118.5
-
89.2
119.5
-
90.5
115.7
-
-
8fi.9
114.3
-
9I>. 9
113.8
-
88.7
PH
8.2
-
7.9
8.3
-
8.1
8.2
-
-
7.9
8.2
-
8.0
8.3
-
8.0
Note: Data represent .individual determinations
- Not analyzed
-------
(11.0 to 11.6aC) and bottom (5.4 to 6.8°C) waters. Surface salinities ranged
from 30.68 to 30.94 /oo ppt, while bottom salinities ranged from 31.79 to
32.38 /oo. Surface waters were supersaturated with dissolved oxygen (all
values above 100%), while bottom waters were near saturation (86 to 96%). All
total suspended solids and turbidity levels were low and did not show
consistent patterns with depth; overall ranges were 0.14 to 0.75 mg/liter and
0.27 to 0.76 NTU, respectively.
Survey values are comparable to other data reported for the area (TRIGOM,
1976). Surface and bottom (40m) temperatures averaged 13.9°C and 6.7°C,
respectively; average salinities were 31.5 /oo and 32.4 /oo, respectively.
Ranges in temperatures were 10.0° to 18.6°C for surface waters, and 4.2° to
12.2°C for bottom waters. Dissolved oxygen was reported at or near saturation
in both surface and bottom waters. Suspended solids did not vary in
concentration in the top 100m.
Concentrations of dissolved and particulate trace metals taken at mid-depth
were low (<0.1 ug/liter), and did not show any spatial trends which could be
attributed to dredged material disposal at the site. Dieldrin was the only
chlorinated hydrocarbon detected; it was present in trace amounts (1.38,
1.66 ng/liter) both inside and outside the site (Table A-4).
TABLE A-4
MIDDEPTH LEVELS OF DISSOLVED CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS AND
DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE TRACE METALS (EPA/IEC SURVEY, JUNE 1979)
Station
1
6
Sample
Depth
(m)
11
18
Trace Metals (ug/liter)
Particulate
Hg
0.001
0.001
Pb
0.045
0.044
Cd
0.065
0.073
Dissolved
Hg
0.030
0.003
?b
0.11
0.14
Cd
0.061
0.110
*
Dieldrin
1.38
1.66
Note: Data represent individual determinations
* Dieldrin was the only chlorinated hydrocarbon (pesticide, PCS) detected
A-10
-------
Sediment Characteristics
During the June L979 survey replicated bottom samples were taken only at
Station 7 and showed a heterogeneous distribution of grain sizes; sand and
fines (silt and clay) content ranged from 11.7% to 75.1% and from 18.2% to
88.1%, respectively. The single sample from Station 4 had 54.6% gravel and
41.5% sand, indicating the coarse nature of the sediments at this location
(Table A-5). The bottom at other stations was rocky and could not be sampled
with grab or coring devices. Similar sampling difficulties were encountered
during April 1980; however, two or more samples were obtained at Station 1
(center of ODMDS) and Station 7 (control). Sediments retrieved during this
survey were predominantly fine-grained and relatively similar in texture
(overall range 73.1% to 87.7% fines) for both stations; little or no gravel
was observed (Table A-6).
Comparing both surveys, sediments from the center of the Existing Site
(April 1980) contained levels of mercury, cadmium, and lead 3 to 12 times
higher than sediments from control Station 7, just outside the site (Tables
A-5 and A-6). Since sediments from both areas were predominantly fine-
grained, the differences in metal concentrations probably reflected
contaminants present in dredged material dumped at the ODMDS. Both locations
(inside and outside the ODMDS) contained levels of trace metals higher than
the levels present in sediments from Georges Bank, an offshore area removed
from known sources of pollution (ERCO, 1978). However, trace metal levels
from the ODMDS and control stations were generally lower than levels present
in Portland Harbor sediments (Table A-7).
Total organic carbon (TOC) levels in sediments from the ODMDS (Station 1)
and control (Station 7) were comparable, ranging from 9.7 to 19.5 mg/g (Tables
A-5 and A-6). TOC is composed of material of biogenic (marine and ter-
restrial) and anthropogenic (industrial and municipal) origin. The levels
found at and near the Existing Site are greater than open ocean values, but
similar to other levels in the coastal zone of the general region (ERCO,
1978).
A-ll
-------
TABLE A-5
SEDIMENT TRACE METALS, OIL AND GREASE,
TOC. AND GRAIN SIZE (EPA/IEC SURVEY, JUNE 1979)
Station
(Cast #)
4 (2)
7 (2)
7 (3)
7 (4)
7 (5)
7 (7)
7 (11)
Oil &
Grease
(mg/g)
-
-
1.030
0.296
-
-
-
TOC
(mg/g)
-
-
18.90
11.20
-
-
-
Trace Metals
-------
TABLE A-6
SEDIMENT TRACE METALS, OIL AND GREASE,
TOC, AND GRAIN SIZE (EPA/IEC SURVEY, APRIL 1980)
Station
(Cast #)
1 (6)
1 (7)
7 (1)
7 (2)
7 (3)
7 (4)
7 (5)
7 (6)
7 (7)
Oil &
Grease
(rag/g)
2.55
3.08
2.08
1.58
-
-
-
-
-
TOC
(mg/g)
19.5
9.7
14.3
14.8
-
-
-
-
-
Trace Metals
(M8/e)
Hg
0.31
0.36
0.06
0.07
-
-
-
-
-
Cd
0.46
0.44
0.04
0.04
-
-
-
-
-
Pb
54.
67
20
20
-
-
-
-
-
Gravel
(%)
0.21
0.36
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sand
(%)
26.70
24.91
12.08
11.77
25.71
19.02
21.61
20.91
18.12
Silt
(%)
28.20
30.85
34.39
26.12
60.58
67.89
65.65
64.71
65.02
Clay
(%)
44.89
43.87
53.35
62.15
13.71
13.09
12.74
14.38
16.86
*
Fine
00
73.09
74.72
87.74
88.27
74.29
80.98
78.39
79.09
81.88
>
Note: Data represent individual determinations
- Not analyzed
TOC = Total organic carbon
* Silt and clay
-------
TABLE A-7
TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENTS
(MS/S)
Area
Existing Site
Station 7 (Control)
Station 7 (Control)
Georges Bank
Portland Harbor
Source
IEC, 1980*
IEC, 1980*
IEC, 1979*
ERGO, 1978**
CE, 1979**
NUSC, 1979**
Mercury
0.34
0.07
0.06
T
0.46
0.40
Cadmium
0.45
0.04
0.03
0.01 to 0.03
3.49
1.09
Lead
60
20
12
1 to 7
90
54
Number of
Samples
2
2
2
tt
18
4
* Using the weak-acid leach technique
** Method not reported
t Not analyzed
ft Mot recorded
Most CHC's in sediments collected (April 1930) from che center of the
Existing Site (Station 1) were present at higher concentrations than in the
control area just outside the Site (Station 7) as shown in Table A-8. Levels
in both areas, however, were much lower than amounts present in or near major
ports, such as Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, and the New York Bight (Chen et
al., 1976; West et al. , 1976; West and Hatcher, 1980). Comparable data are
unavailable for CHC's in Portland Harbor sediments or offshore areas.
Oil and grease concentrations in sediments from Station 1 (2.6 to 3.1 mg/g)
and Control Station 7 (0.3 to 2.1 mg/g) are shown in Tables A-5 and A-6.
Concentrations at both stations were similar to concentrations in Portland
Harbor (CE, 1979). A more detailed analysis identified the distribution and
the biogenic and anthropogenic sources of hydrocarbon compounds (Table A-9) .
Sediments collected from the disposal area (Station 1) contained high levels
( > 300 ppm) of both saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons; several sources may
have contributed to this input (Table A-9). The predominant source indicated
by the analyses was No. 2 fuel oil, spilled either at the Existing Site or
into harbor sediments (later dredged and dumped at the Existing Site). The
low alkane/isoprenoid ratio in these sediments, relative to higher ratios for
fresh oil, suggests substantial (80%) biochemical degradation of the alkanes
A-14
-------
TABLE A-8
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
IN SEDIMENTS (EPA/IEC SURVEY, APRIL 1980)
(ng/g)
Station
(cast)
1 (6)
1 (7)
7 (1)
7 (2)
PCB
(Arochlor 1260*)
32.60
43.10
11.50
4.92
Pesticides and Pesticide Derivatives**
pp'DDE
2.91
4.22
ND
ND
pp'DDD
20.40
31.90
0.95
1.51
Chlordane
ND
ND
6.20
5.22
Hepcachlor
0.21
0.43
ND
0.17
Note: Data represent individual determinations
ND = Not detected
* No other PCB mixtures were detected
** No other pesticides or derivatives detected
TABLE A-9
HYDROCARBON ANALYSES OF MARINE
SEDIMENT SAMPLES (EPA/IEC SURVEY, APRIL 1980)
Seaclon
I
1
7
7
Case
6
7
1
2
Wet We.
5.2
109.5
102.3
41.7
Dry Wt.
(8)
25.4
50.2
47.8
17.2
Liquid
Wt.
3,190
3,910
1,090
1.460
local
f. GRAV
(M8/8)
332
417
34
it
Resolved
il cc
(pg/8>
7.6
6.9
1.7
2.2
CPI
3.95
5.14
4.94
4.92
ALK/
ISO
0.65
0.36
2.04
4.71
f,/TOC
(i 10")
196
430
24
28
Total
f2 GRAV
(Pg/g)
315
390
9
62
Resolved
£2 GC
(fg/8>
17
29
2.1
2.6
Source
Class!- ,
Cicaclon
5/4/3/1
5/4/3/1
3/1/4
3/1/4
f, • Aliphatic hydrocarbons
f? • Aromatic hydrocarbons
GRAV - Gravimetric analysis
GC - Gas chromatograph
ALK/ISO - Alkanes/lsopreoolda
CPI • Carbon preference Index
TOC « Total organic carbon
Source Classifications
1 ** Terrigenous blogenlc materials
3 • Chronic petroleum contamination
4 - Pyrogenlc polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
5 - Fuel oil
A-15
-------
present in the sediments (ERCO, 1980). Other indicated sources of hydrocarbon
inputs into Existing Site sediments included: (1) chronic petroleum
contamination, (2) pyrogenic combustion contamination (compounds from fossil
fuel combustion entering the system via direct fallout over the ocean or
fallout over land, with subsequent riverine transport), and (3) terrigenous
biogenic materials (mainly plant waxes probably introduced into coastal
sediments through riverine runoff).
Tissues
Only two samples (both at Station 1) were successfully collected for tissue
analysis (Table A-10). Both lobster and crab showed low levels of metals. No
CHC's were identified. Historical data were unavailable for comparison.
BIOLOGY
The Existing Site and vicinity were surveyed by IEC using box cores co
collect infauna (1979/1980), and underwater video and still camera photography
to identify epifauna (1980). Remote photography is an invaluable sampling
method for surveying epibenthic organisms on deep, rocky habitats, but
information gained by this method is limited because specimens are not
collected for positive identification, and highly mobile species rarely are
observed. Results from the photographic survey are reported in Appendix B.
TABLE A-10
LEVELS OF TRACE METALS IN CRUSTACEAN
TISSUES COLLECTED FROM THE EXISTING SITE
Tissue
Lobster (Homarus americanus)
Crab (Cancer sp.), juvenile
Date
June 1979
April 1980
Trace iMetals
Hg
0.055
0.035
Cd
0.71
0.39
Pb
0.46
2.84
A-16
-------
The laboratory analysis for infauna, considered the 5 to 7 dominant species
within each replicate sample, comprises a total of 20 and 15 species in the
1979 and 1980 IEC Surveys, respectively (Tables A-ll and A-12).
Polychaetes were the major group (14 and 10 spp., respectively). No
molluscs were dominant in the first survey, and only three species were domi-
nant during the second. Crustaceans were represented by four amphipod and one
isopod species in the first survey, but only by a single barnacle in the
second.
Species composition of the infauna samples reflected the temporal
heterogeneity of the substrate within the Existing Site, as the sample-
to-sample variability was very high. Only three dominant species (all
polychaetes) were commo'n to both surveys: Prionospio malmgreni , Aricidea
quadrilobata, and Cossura longocirrata.
During the 1979 survey there was little overlap in dominant species between
casts at Station 7, possibly because of differences in sediment charac-
teristics (Table A-5). All replicates were separated by nearly 0.5 nmi.
Casts 2 and 5 were from areas characterized by fine silts and clays; casts 7
and 11 were from sandy areas (Table A-5). Only 10% of the dominants occurred
in both areas. In contrast, casts from Station 7 during L980 were within 0.02
nmi of each other, and all had similar sediment characteristics (Table A-6).
Consequently, 67% of the dominant species were present in at least 3 of the 5
casts.
Earlier surveys by NUSC and Normandeau gave a different indication of
dominant organisms and community structure than the IEC surveys. The
differences between the NUSC and IEC surveys may have resulted from different
sampling methodologies. The NUSC survey collected benthic samples by dragging
2
an anchor dredge for 200 to 400m, whereas the IEC studies used 0.06-m box
cores. A dredge samples a much larger area than a box core which, perhaps,
could account for the greater number of molluscs collected.
A-17
-------
TABLE A-ll
ABUNDANCES OF THE DOMINANT INFAUNA WITHIN
EACH STATION, COLLECTED AT THE EXISTING SITE IN JUNE 1979
(individual/0.06 m )
Cast
Annelida
Polychaeta
Ampharete artica
Aricidea auadrilobata
Cossura longocirraca
Drilonereis longa
Exogone verugera
Euclymene collaris
Maldane criscaca
Melinna cristaca
Polydora ligni
Potamechus singularis
Prionospio malmgreni
Spio filicornis
Spiophanes kroyeri
Streblosoma spiralis
Arthropoda
Amphipoda
Harpinia propinqua
Paradulichia cypica
Photis reinhardi
Unciola serraca
Isopoda
Cyachura polica
Sipuncula
Phascolion strombi
Station 4
2
19
24
25
28
113
—
Station 7
2
41
3
1
2
1
1
—
5
122
12
11
23
—
—
7
19
—
71
61
42
31
42
237
11
112
—
.—
44
11
35
17
—
—
Note: A dash (-) indicates that the organism was not one of the 5 to 7 domi-
nants within the replicate or station, but may or may not be present.
A-18
-------
VO
TABLE A-12
ABUNDANCES OF THE DOMINANT INFAUNA SPECIES
WITHIN EACH STATION, COLLECTED AT THE EXISTING SITE IN APRIL 1980
(individual/0.06 m2)
Case
Aimel id a
01 igochaeta
Polychaeta
Anobothrus gracilis
Aricidea quadrilobata
Chaetozone setosa
C'oesura longocirrata
Heteromastus filiformis
Ninoe nigripes
Paraonis gracilis
Prionospio cnaloigreni
Tnaryx acutus
Tli oryx annulosus
Arthropoda
Cirripedia
Cytherois zostericola
Mot lusca
Bivalvia
Astarce undaca
Crenel la glandula
Nucula delphindonta
Scat ton 1
1
3
13
16
23
154
36
48
35
5
1
'2
20
7
6
25
72
59
24
37
5
5
3
10
0
0
26
12
33
0
1
0
4
4
12
16
16
24
342
29
0
12
9
9
5
24
7
16
3U
186
63
0
12
33
28
X
13.8
8.6
10.8
27.2
153.2
48.0
14.4
19.4
10.4
9.4
SD
8.3
6.2
7.4
6.1
125.7
15.8
21.5
15.8
13.0
10.7
bt union 7
1
534
206
115
41
123
122
234
126
12
--
2
29
68
1
12
20
31
154
10
17
—
3
37
8
19
26
27
44
42
14
19
—
4
37
8
20
48
6
35
98
12
20
—
5
7
11
1
32
6
5
43
12
5
—
X
128.8
60.2
31.2
31.8
36.4
47.4
114.2
34.8
14.6
--
SD
226.8
85.4
47.8
13.9
49.2
44.2
81.4
51.0
6.2
...
Noce: A dash (-) indicates that the species was not one of the 5 to 7 dominants within the replicate,
but may or may not be present.
SI) = Standard deviation
X = Mean
-------
The Van Veen grabs used in Che Nonnandeau (1974) invescigacions collected
samples twice as large (0.14 m ) as the IEC samples. In the first Nonnandeau
survey, one station (GM3) was within 0.5 nmi of the IEC and NUSC survey
locations, and two stations (GM7, GM8) were within 8 to 10 nmi. All stations
in the second survey were within 3 nmi of the IEC and NUSC sites.
A comparison of the 10 dominant species collected in the Nonnandeau I and
II surveys (1974a,b), with the dominant species in the IEC surveys, again
revealed very few overlaps. Of all the dominant species collected during the
1979 IEC survey, 15% and 35% were present in Normandeau I and II, respec-
tively. IEC (1979) dominants Harpinia propinqua (amphipod) and Phascolion
strombi (sipunculid) were dominant in Nonnandeau I and II, respectively. Of
the dominant species found in the 1980 IEC survey, 33% and 40% were present in
Nonnandeau I and II, respectively." The polychaete Ninoe nigripes was dominant
in IEC (1980) and Nonnandeau I; none of the IEC (1980) dominants were dominant
in the Nonnandeau II study. Most of these differences could be due to changes
in sediment characteristics; as noted earlier sediment grain size can change
radically over short distances.
Photographic surveys (Appendix B) of the epifauna associated with
sandy/silty substrates revealed large numbers of unidentified tubicolous
polychaetes in some areas, but few or none in other areas (Table A-13).
Cerianthid anemones (Cerianthus borealis) were common and a few asteroids
(Henricia, Solaster) were noted. Crabs and fishes were absent but, as noted,
this may be due to the method of sampling.
Molluscs were the major group collected by NUSC (1979). The three most
abundant and four of the seven dominant species were molluscs. None of these
organisms were dominant in the 1979 IEC survey, and only a mollusc (Astarte
undata) and a polychaece (Ninoe nigripes) were dominant in the 1980 IEC
survey. Five of the 20, and 3 of the 15, dominant species in the 1979 and
1980 IEC surveys, respectively, were present in low numbers in the NUSC (1979)
investigations.
A-20
-------
TABLE A-13
ABUNDANCES OF THE EPIBENTHIC
SPECIES WITHIN EACH HABITAT TYPE AT THE EXISTING SITE
Species
Poriferg
ApLyjilla glacialia
Hynedesnia sp.
HyxilU fiobraca
T ' ' b 'c
unid- sponges
Cnidarians
Bolocera cuediae
CLavuLaria modesca
Metridium senile
Sconphia coccinea
Annelida
Myxicola inrundibulum
unid. sp. A
unid. sabellid
Arcnropoda CCruscacea)
Hyaa conrccacus
Pandalus sp
Echinodenaaca
Solaacer endeca
.
Psolus fabricii
unid. ophiuroids
Brachiopoda
Terebraculina sepcenccionalis
Chordaca (Ascidians)
Apylidium sp
Aacidia callosa °
Bolcenia ovifera
Halocynchia pjrriforais
*No Relief
(H - 39)
X
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.05
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
0
0
16.2
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.08
0.03
0
0
0
0
4.0
0
0.1
0
0.5
SO
0
0
0
0
1.1
0.3
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
0
0
16.6
0
0
0
o ,
0.2
0.3
0.2
0
0
0
0
9.9
0
0.4
0
2.0
**Low Selief
(N - 14)
X
0
0
0.9
0.2
1.8
0.9
0
0.07
0.1
0
0.4
0.07
0
0.1
0
0.3
3.2
0.07
0
0
0.7
0.07
0
0
0
2.6
27.4
0.07
0.1
0.1
0
SO
0
0
1.3
0.4
2.3
1.2
0
0.3
0.4
0
1.1
0.3
0
0.5
0
0.7
3.2
0.3
0
0
0.8
0.3
0
0
0
5.7
18.9
0.3
0.4
0.4
0
'Medium Relief
(9 • 6)
7
0
0.2
0
0
:.3
1.8
0
0.3
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
21.3
0
0.7
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
6.7
0
0.2
0
0
SO
0
0.4
0
0
1.5
1.3
0
0.5
0
0.4
0
0
0
0
24.1
0
0.5
0
0
0
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
3.1
0
0.4
0
0
"High Relief
(N - 8)
X
0.2
0.8
0.1
0.2
4.0
2.0
0.1
0.8
0
0
0
0
0.4
0
1.2
0
0.5
0
0.2
0
0.4
0
0.2
0.2
• 0-2
0.5
8.1
0
0.2
0
0
SO
0.7
1.2
0.3
0.5
3.5
2.3
0.3
1.2
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
3.5
0
0.8
0
0.7
0
0.5
0
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.1
7.2
0
0.7
0 '
0
Note: Valuea represent the mean number and standard deviation of individuals/photographic frame (fraoe " 0.2 o ). The
number of frames ac each habitat follows che habitat description. Abundances were decerrained by benthic photography.
* Silt bottom, no rocks
** Sediments and rock
T ftoc ks , some sed imenc
rr Bock outcrops, cobble
X • Mean number
SD • Standard deviation
A-21
-------
Appendix B
PHOTOGRAPHIC CHARACTERIZATION
Remote photographic techniques (videotape, still photographs) were employed
to survey the .epifauna around the Point Disposal Location (PDL) of the
Existing Site. Eight stations were established within this topographically
complex area: two on the tops of the rocky rises or ridges, five on slopes,
and one on a basin floor (Figure B-l). Numerous still photographs were taken
at each station and representative examples are reproduced herein. Physical
and biological descriptions of each station is presented. Table B-l lists the
relative abundances of each species within the stations. Exact values were
not possible to ascertain because surface area varied with the amount of
relief in the areas photographed.
STATION 5 - TOP OF RIDGE
Station 5 was located southwest of the PDL and on top of a rocky area at a
depth of 40m (Figure B-l). Almost all locations within this station were
covered by a light to moderate layer of sediment; bare rock was exposed in a
few places. The bottom was generally flat, but interrupted in some areas by
low rocks or rock outcrops. The overall physical relief was low ( < 15 cm).
Some areas showed evidence of heavy recent sedimentation.
Brachiopods were by far the most numerically dominant organisms within
Station 5, and were more abundant here than in any of the other stations
around the PDL. The organisms were attached to rocky substrates, but the
point of attachment was often buried beneath a thin layer of sediment.
Barnacles were usually present, but in low numbers, within areas of little or
no sediment cover; presumably, dead individuals occur in some areas of heavier
sediment layers. Sponges, asteroids, polychaetes, and stalked ascidians were
present in lower numbers. A few dense aggregations of ophiuroids were
evident.
B-l
-------
± s
STATIONS A
A
STATION 4
A STATIC
AAST,
TATION1
STATION 2
)N 5
ITION6
DISPOSAL
BUOY"
^STATION
-
A
STATION V
& STA1
A STATION
A
13
•ION 7
3
STATION 9
*43C34.119', 70*01.924'
225
Meters
Figure B-l. Location of Stations for Benthic
Photography and the Bathymetrie Base Chart
B-2
-------
TABLE B-l
ABUNDANCES OF THE EPIBENTHIC SPECIES AT EACH STATION
Porifera
Apiyai 1 la glacialis
Hymedesnia ap.
Myxilla fimbrata
Pellina eiciens
Polymastia infrapilosa
Siibertechinus htspidus
Tentorium aeoiauberi tes
unid. oponges
Cnidariano
Bolocera tuediae
Cerianthus borealis
Clavularia modesta
Mctridium senile
Stomphia coccinea
Annel ida
Mynicola infund jbulum
unid. ap. A
unid. aabellid
Archropoda (Cruatacea)
Balanus balanua
llyas coarccatua
Pandalua ap.
unid. caridean shrimp
Echinodermata
Henricia sanguinolenta
Solaster endeca
unid. asteroid (juv)
Strongylocentrotua droebachienaia
Psolus fabricii
unid. ophiuroids
Brachiopoda
Terebratul ina septent rionalia
Chordata (Ascidians)
Apyl idium up.
Ascidia callosa
Bolcenia ovi fera
llalocynchia pyriformia
Station 1
(N - 11)
X
0
0
1.2
0.3
1.8
0.7
0
0.1
O.I
0
O.i>
O.I
0
0.2
1.4
0
2.5
0
0
0
0.4
0.2
0
0
0
0
26.0
O.I
0.5
0
0.7
SD
0
0
1.4
0.5
2.4
1.1
0
0.3
0.3
0
1.2
0.3
0
0.6
4.5
0
3.7
0
0
0
0.8
0.4
0
0
0
0
13.6
0.3
0.8
0
2.4
Station 4
(N - 10)
X
0
0
0
0
1.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.3
0
0
0
0
O.I
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.6
0
0
0
1.0
SD
0
0
0
0
1 .0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.2
0
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.7
0
0
0
3.2
Station 5
(N - 9)
X
0
0
0
0
0.9
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0.7
1.9
0.1
0
0
2.3
0
0
0
0
4.1
26.8
0
0
0.2
0
SD
0
0
0
0
1 .5
I.I
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
0
1.0
2.2
0.3
0
0
2.3
0
0
0
0
6.8
25.3
0
0
0.4
0
Station 6
(N - 6)
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Station 7
(N - 7)
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Station 8
(N - 9)
X
0
O.I
0
0
1.2
0.1
0
0.2
0
1.6
0
0
0
0
5.6
0
0.3
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
2.8
0
0
0
0
SD
0
0.3
0
0
1.6
0.3
0
0.4
0
1.2
0
0
0
0
9.1
0
0.5
0
0
0
1.3
0
0
0
0
0
3.9
0
0
0
0
Station 9
(N • 21)
X
O.I
0.3
O.I
0.1
2.3
1.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0
0
0.1
0
15.7
1.3
0.2
0
O.I
0
0.2
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
5.0
0 •
O.I
0
0
SI)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
2.7
1.8
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.2
0
0
0.4
0
19.7
2.6
0.5
0
0.2
0
0.4
0
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.7
!i.7
I)
0.5
0
0
W
I
U>
Kote: Values represent the mean number and standard deviation of individuals/photographic frame (frame • 0.2m ).
X • Mean number
SD *> Standard deviation
N • Number of frames at each stalion
-------
Two subareas within Station 5 were unique among all stations surveyed, in
that they appeared to be covered by a thick layer of sediment and were almost
completely devoid of visible life. In one of these subareas the sediment
consisted of coarse-grained sand with numerous shell fragments and ripple
marks (Figure 3-2), indicating possible strong water motion and winnowing of
fine sediments. A few tracks were visible on the sediment, possibly from the
tentacles of a terebellid polychaete. The sediment in the other subarea of
Station 5 was much finer and globular in appearance; no shell fragments were
observed (Figure B-3). Virtually no signs of life were present.
A thick layer of sediment, per se, does not prohibit the development of
biological communities. Indeed, several boctom areas in nearby stations
appeared to have a similar sediment cover, yet numerous benthic organisms were
present. The combined features of thick sediment and lack of life within the
two subareas of Station 5 strongly suggest recent deposition of this sediment
and concomitant burial of attached organisms.
This explanation is feasible since Station 5 was located on top of an
elevated rocky mound, immediately downcurrent from the small basin designated
as the PDL. Beginning in Fall L979 approximately two barges per day dumped
sediment at the PDL. Consequently, the heavy sedimentation evident within the
two areas of Station 5 may have resulted from dredged material disposal.
STATION 8 - TOP OF RIDGE
Station 8 was northeast of the PDL, on top of a small bench at a depth of
50m (Figure B-l). All bottoms within this station possessed moderate to heavy
layers of sediment. Some bottom areas were characterized by partially buried
(15 to 20 cm) cobbles interspersed with small pebbles; whereas other areas
appeared to be flat and covered extensively by fine sand, with little evidence
of water motion. The overall physical relief of Station 8 ranged from low
(< 15 cm) to moderate (15 to 60 on). There was no indication of significant
B-4
-------
;> - •:*
.-. .
t .. :<.
$r
A'-*
'« t
"--" " . -v, > '"
r ;I *,.
f v^ i*. •«> ' * - c
- »*-* rt*. -•"'• ^
'•
:• ?
>l ••'
Figure B-2. Evidence of Recent Sedimentation (Area =*0.2m )
at Station 5 (no epibenthlc organisms are present)
B-5
-------
Figure B-3. Another Subarea (=<0.2m ) at Station 5
With Evidence of Recent Sedimentation
B-6
-------
sedimentation occurring within the past few months. The cobble and gravel
areas were populated by low numbers of brachiopods, asteroids, barnacles, and
sponges. Ophiuroids were not observed.
The sediment surface was characteristic of intensive biological activity by
infauna and epifauna. Tubicolous polychaetes were present, as well as
cerianthid anemones (Figure B-4). The anemones have greatly elongated bodies
and are adapted for living within secreted tubes buried in sand or mud. Many
size classes were evident, suggesting a relatively stable habitat—one that
was not formed by recent sedimentation. The sediment layer must be fairly
deep in these areas because cerianthids were present and brachiopods are
absent.
Although both Stations 5 and 8 are on the tops of elevated pinnacles or
benches, they were somewhat different. Station 5 was primarily low relief
bedrock covered by generally thin layers of sediment (except in two areas);
the bottom at Station 8 consisted of semiexposed cobble and areas of
relatively thick sediment.
The biological communities reflect the physiographic differences.
Brachiopods were ubiquitous at Station 5, but were restricted to areas having
cobble bottoms at Station 8. At Station 5 ophiuroids were common within small
depressions in the bedrock, but they were absent from Station 8. The
relatively deeper sediments in Station 8 were populated by cerianthids and
tubicolous polychaetes; these were absent and uncommon, respectively, at
Station 5.
STATION 1 - SLOPE
Station 1 was on a slope at a depth of 40 to 60m, northwest of the PDL
(Figure B-l). The bottom here consisted of bedrock outcrops which were
exposed in some areas, and covered with a light to moderate layer of
fine-grained sediment in others. The bottom was generally flat, with low
( < 15 cm) physical relief. There was some evidence of recent but light
sedimentation.
B-7
-------
Figure B-4. The Benthos at Station 8 (2* 0.2m )
(Cerianthid anemones are Cerianthus borealla; numerous
"twisted" tubes are unidentified polychaetes)
B-3
-------
A relatively diverse epifaunal community was present on exposed bedrock
with little or no sediments. Brachiopods were dominant and nearly as abundant
as at Station 5. Barnacles were much less abundant than brachiopods, but more
abundant at this station than at any other station surveyed near the PDL.
Numerous types of sponges, both erect and' encrusting, were common in low
numbers, as were asteroids. Actiniarid and stoloniferid anemones were
present, but uncommon on bedrock.. Stoloniferids were not observed at other
stations.
Bottom areas covered by fine-grained sediment were characterized by a
disturbed surface, indicating little water motion and extensive bioturbation
by infaunal and epifaunal species. The epibenthic community here was
relatively diverse. Polychaete worm tubes and tunicates were present in low
numbers. Brachiopods were the dominant organisms in this habitat, suggesting
the presence of bedrock below the sediment layer (brachiopods require a hard
substrate for attachment). The absence of cerianthid anemones, which require
a relatively deep layer of sediment and were common in nearby stations,
further supports the presence of a moderate layer of sediment.
Most sediment bottoms within Station I may have been formed by natural
processes associated with a sloped environment, rather than by disposal
activities. The prevailing southwesterly current would direct most of the
suspended dredged sediments away from this station. A few brachiopods showed
evidence of partial or complete burial.
STATION 4 - SLOPE
Station 4 lay on a slope at a depth of 45 to 55m, due west of the PDL
(Figure B-l). This region was flat with low ( < 15 cm) physical relief and was
covered by a layer of fine-grained sediment. Small rocks (15 to 25 cm) were
present in one area, providing the only vertical relief at this station.
Water motion apparently was minimal, and there was some evidence of recent
sedimentation.
B-9
-------
Few organisms were apparent on the semiexposed rocks. Erect sponges and
unidentified fouling organisms (hydroids, bryozoans) were present in low
numbers. A clump of five brachiopods was observed to be partially buried, and
all individuals appeared to be dead.
Extensive biological activity by infauna was suggested by the surface
sediment features. Numerous holes, mounds, and tracks created by bivalves,
polychaetes, and/or gastropods were present. The epibenthic fauna was
dominated by an unidentified tubicolous polychaete, characterized by a twisted
tube extending 7 to 10 cm from the bottom. Of all stations surveyed,
polychaetes were most abundant within this station (Figure B-5).
Bottom sediments populated by polychaetes at this station may represent
sedimentary basins of long standing. However, the absence of cerianthid
anemones indicates a relatively shallow thickness of sediment. In other
areas, the presence of brachiopods, sponges, and a single live barnacle within
a sediment layer suggests relatively recent deposition on a rocky surface.
Although brachiopods can settle on polychaete tubes (numerous tubes are
present in the area), the sponges and barnacles require a hard substrate. In
other areas there was stronger evidence of recent sedimentation. Here, the
few sponges and brachiopods were almost completely buried, yet apparently were
still alive.
Station 4 was located on the north slope of a rocky elevation, the top of
which exhibited evidence of extensive and recent sedimentation (Station 5).
Sedimentation patterns observed for Station 4 may have been a result of its
location downslope of large sedimentary deposits and/or because of downcurrent
transport of materials released at the PDL. Recent sedimentation may be a
direct and/or indirect result of disposal activities.
STATIONS 6 AND 7 - SLOPES
Station 6 was southwest of the PDL, at a depth of 55 to 65m (Figure B-L).
This station formed the southern slope of the rocky elevation, with Station 4
B-LO
-------
" ^& * . V 4 " •.
••**•' >^
• V : *. -V- V" '
f ' '.'*•*••«•* ' S> -*^' .- *••>• ' *~va •
* • » » . wr **^ ' > - -
'••» . • '*•J.**' ' •«•»•'. » "
I .- ^w.-/ -t ... '..•'. '<*-
-*< • *< •' » '. v^,. J* ^i
r^ \ • '"•
*••**•*. ..•*•• s i • * •*<*-*iiy%
•*•' ' -'•» . : ' • ^s . •
' .* • • ' " . "^'^-' ?,- '. .- -•.-•»*•
7- f ^-5>fr-.- >•--•«»•. 'v-'^ "- --tV^--1 V-.; ••:
f i v ^ V--^ • '--/i&C -^ "-/>- .-w»v-r vr^-j
I.--,/,/ ^^; -v^\.^U^'>^*^i^
'»' " «•" • c^*-vf "' /•*'5B^-. A^SF^'v*^-; » ?- >*•• v
-- •.- > .' -' *s^-' <^-7^- :^; ^^V;
• >jfa'. ••;^;-^''!%^ v-V*1'.^
?» "^ ' •' LA' V' .^^nfc- -T L-- i*3P*<£*'*' • *?'* - f * "f> antfr1"
J>* •*.' X ' <^""-->•. /*•-.'«, *- .^ ,,*"'?(C j8l» ft. i . ; •-K"*VL'^ vflNl"*-/
Figure B-5. The Slope Benthos at Station 4 (=0.2m ) (numerous
"twisted" tubes are unidentified polychaetes; partially buried
sponge near the lower left corner may be Polymastia infrapilosa)
B-ll
-------
on che northern slope and Station 5 at the top. Station 7 was located on a
slope at 50 to 60m depth, northwest of the PDL. The seafloor at both stations
was flat and covered by a layer of fine-grained sediment. No rocky outcrops,
colxbles, or pebbles were present. On the basis of sediment characteristics,
water motion evidently was minimal. There was no evidence of recent
sedimentation at either station.
Unidentified tubicolous polychaetes (see Station 4) are the only sedentary
organisms visible at both Stations 6 and 7. However, cheir abundances in both
stations were lower than the densities observed within similar habitats from
other stations. Indeed, with the exception of the areas of heavy sedimenta-
tion at Station 5, 6, and 7 had the least developed epibenthic communities
among all stations investigated. The surface sediments at both stations,
however, revealed numerous tracks and holes, indicating the presence of mobile
and buried organisms.
The slope location of Stations 6 and 7 is conducive to natural sedimen-
tation by gravitational flow from upslope sediment deposits. Station 6
(usually downcurrent of the PDL) may receive more sediments due to disposal
activities than Station 7 (usually upcurrent). Neither area bears evidence of
recent sedimentation because polychaetes do not appear to be buried.
Sedimentation rates and bottom characteristics evidently were similar at both
stations because the epibenthic communities were composed of the same
polychaete species in similar densities and sizes.
STATION 9 - SLOPE
Station 9 is a slope at 45 to 55m depth, due west of the PDL (Figure B-L).
This area was the most ecologically diverse of all the stations surrounding
the PDL. The small-scale physiography ranged from flat bottoms extensively
covered by fine-grained sediment to bottoms with high relief ( ~ 60 cm) con-
sisting of rocky ledges or numerous large rocks (20 to 25 cm), wich little or
no sediment cover. There was no evidence of bottom currents, but some
indication of recent sedimentation.
B-12
-------
The rocky surfaces at Station 9 were populated by attached organisms such
as brachiopods, numerous types of erect and encrusting sponges, anemones,
polychaetes, and barnacles (Figure B-6). Asteroids, ophiuroids, and a sea
urchin were observed. All densities were low and no single species was
clearly dominant. Sponges were the most abundant group.
All flat bottom areas were covered by a layer of sediment and the surfaces
were disturbed by numerous tracks and holes formed by organisms. In some
locations the sediment layer must have been relatively thin, because erect
sponges, brachiopods, rock-dwelling asteroids, and a few tubicolous
polychaetes were present. Other bottom areas were covered by a deeper layer
of sediment, as suggested by the presence of cerianthid anemones and the
greater abundance of tubicolous polychaetes.
«
The biological diversity of flat bottom at Station 9 was similar to that at
Station 1. Station 1 was also on a slope, but the bottom was primarily
bedrock covered by an apparently thin layer of sediment. Station 9 had more
tubicolous polychaetes and cerianthids, and fewer brachiopods than Station 1,
indicating deeper layers of sediments.
STATION 11 - FLOOR
Station 11 occupied the floor of a small basin south of the PDL at a depth
of 60m, and was connected to the PDL via a narrow north-south oriented ravine
(Figure B-l). The floor was a flat expanse of mud with obvious signs of
bioturbation. Sediments in this basin appeared to have accumulated over a
long period of time, with no indication of heavy, recent sedimentation.
Tubicolous polychaetes were the only organism observed, but it was common;
its density exceeded values recorded for some slope stations.
DISCUSSION
All eight IEC stations within the Existing Site (Figure B-l) were covered
by some sediment. Some of these areas supported populations of large
B-13
-------
EiliS^
uUiT-:- ^^•^'i^j.A.-arV..-- -^ • N^L
s*i -r.-- V*m' •
SJ < -'n *'.r.V-. ?-
Figure B-6. A Rocky Rubble Habitat at Station 9 (=<0.2 m ) (organisms
include a large solitary sponge [Polymastia infrapilosa], smaller
solitary sponges [Subertechnicus hispidus], brachiopods [Terebratulina
septentrionalis], anemones [Stomphia coccinea], colonial sponges
[Hymodismia sp.]» afld the asteroid [Henricia sanguinolenta])
B-U
-------
cerianthid anemones and/or tubicolous polychaetes, which commonly are found in
areas subjected to natural siltation. Sedimentation is probably an ongoing
process in these areas, but occurs at a rate slow enough for the survival of
diverse populations of organisms.
Evidence of recent and extensive sediment deposition, however, was found at
4 of the 8 stations within the Existing Site. Station 5 was located on top of
a rocky elevation, downcurrent of the PDL (relative to the dominant current).
Two areas within Station 5 were characterized by extensive sedimentation and
almost complete absence of life. Consequently, there is a high probability
that these areas were affected by relatively recent dredged material disposal
activities. The remaining three stations (Stations 1, 4, and 9) were on
slopes.' Gravitational flow of sediments downslope is a common process, thus
the partial or complete burial of epibenthic species may or may not have been
a result of dredged material disposal. Station 4 was downslope of Station 5,
and it is possible that the sediments present were directly or indirectly
derived from dredged material disposal. There was no evidence of extensive
and recent sedimentation at Station 6, which also was downslope of Station 5.
Four species observed in the IEC photographic survey of the epifauna also
were present in MUSC (1979) and the Normandeau (1974) samples. Abundances
were different during the recent study, however, because photographic surveys
were not restricted to soft substrates, as were the dredges and grabs used
previously. Brachiopods require a hard substrate for attachment, thus they
were rarely collected by dredges and grabs, but were the dominant species in
most photographs of hard substrate areas. Asteroids commonly were observed on
hard substrates, but were absent from dredge and grab samples. Dredges,
grabs, and photographic surveys of the sediment basins all indicated that
cerianthid anemones were generally present, but in low numbers.
This surveyed region, all within a relatively small area, emphasizes the
large spatial and temporal variability associated with the biota of the
Western Atlantic Boreal Province. The number of species, number of
individuals, and species composition differ substantially within similar
habitats from different areas.
B-15
-------
Appendix C
LAND DISPOSAL COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Comment [from National Coalition for Marine Conser-
vation, Inc.j: "The summary dismissal of land disposal as
an alternative to ocean disposal does not appear to be an
attempt in good faith to comply with the requirements of
NEPA. For example, mere allusion to "the social impacts of
increased trucking in the Portland area" is not dispositive
of the question of the feasibility of onshore disposal.
Furthermore, Section 6.06 is a travesty of response. To
say on the one hand the construction of marshes from
dredged materials "would be an ideal use for the material"
and then dismiss this possibility on the grounds that
"there is insufficient information on the requirements of
New England marshes for this to be a feasible alternative"
is to admit that the Corps is not discharging its
obligations under NEPA and the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act."
Response [by the CEJ: The Corps does not believe we
hastily or arbitrarily dismissed land disposal; we do
believe the material presented was a concise statement of
the facts. However, to amplify the social impacts of
transporting nearly one million cubic yards of sediments
through Portland or South Portland, the following is
presented:
First, assume that a large earth moving truck can
carry 30 cubic yards per trip and that it takes one hour to
load, unload and make a round trip to and from the disposal
site. Then one truck could transport 240 cubic yards of
material a day. If 20 trucks are used to haul the
sediments, then it would require 209 days or over 41 weeks
to move the material — forty weeks of 160 round trips per
day moving through Portland or South Portland.
Also, before the sediments could be hauled away, the
sediments would have to be drained. From past projects, we
have determined that it requires about 8 acres of land for
each 100,000 cubic yards of material. Consequently, about
80 acres of land would be required for draining and
handling the lees. In addition, the Maine Department of
Environment Protection has requested that the Corps
increase the size of the turning basin in Portland Harbor.
C-l
-------
Finally, Che Corps believes it is discharging its
obligations under NEPA and MPRS Act. The Corps has and
continues to research uses for dredged materials — this
includes the building of marshes. No marsh project has
been constructed in the New England area, therefore, the
feasibility of marsh construction in this area has not been
evaluated.
Comment [by the National Coalition for Marine
Conservation, Inc.]: It does not appear from the EIS that
the Corps has made any real attempt to find an onshore
disposal site or to analyze the true economic feasibility
of onshore disposal or the biological feasibility of marsh
construction. Thus, it appears that there has been a
failure to comply with 41 Fed. Reg. 47675 (see Fed. Reg, p.
47678, Oct. 29, 1976).
Response [by the CE]: The Corps is aware of this
section of the Federal Register; however, we fail to see
why it is stated that the Corps is not in compliance.
As for biological feasibility of marsh construction,
we refer you to our previous comments. Concerning
economics, land disposal is clearly the more expensive
alternative. Ocean disposal requires only single handling
of the dredged material; that is, from dredge to scow which
is then towed to the disposal area. Land disposal, since
there are no areas along the waterfront, would involve
trucking thereby requiring triple handling. The operation
would include: dredge to scow, scow to drainage area by
crane and crane to truck. The additional manpower and
equipment requirements are obvious. The following is an
example of some of the associated costs:
Cost per truck per day $150
Cost per front end loader per day $150
Number of days necessary to just
transport the dredged materials 209
Trucks/loader Cost/day Days Cost
20 x $150 x 209 = $627,000
2 x $150 x 209 - 62,700
Cost of materials and construct of dike 525,000
Estimated total cost for land disposal $1,214,700
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
REPORT OF BIOASSAY AND
BIOACCUMULATION TESTING
- SOUTH REACH PORTLAND -
HARBOR, MAINE
Prepared for:
New England Division, Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
Prepared by:
Environmental Sciences Division
Energy Resources Company Inc.
One Alewife Place
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
June 1982
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. OBJECTIVES 3
3. METHODS AND MATERIALS 5
4. RESULTS 10
4.1 Bioassay Studies 10
4.2 Bioaccumulation Studies 12
5. DISCUSSION 25
6. CONCLUSIONS (SUMMARY) 27
! 7. LITERATURE CITED 28
Appendix
A. SAMPLING INFORMATION (MAP)
B. QUALITY-CONTROL PROGRAM
B.I Chain-of-Custody Statement for Sediment
Samples
B.2 Laboratory Procedures for Preparing Sediment
for Bioassays and Conducting Bioassays
B.3 Quality-Control Information for
Bioaccumulation Studies
C. RAW BIOASSAY-RELATED DATA-
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This assessment was performed for the New England
Division of the Corps of Engineers under Work Order No. 0007,
Contract No. DACW-33-81-D-0002.
The New England Division is considering dredging material
from the south reach of Portland Harbor, Maine (Figure 1
and Appendix A). This assessment was conducted with material
collected from this area on March 9, 1982 (Appendix A).
Tests with the material were initiated on March 20, 1982
(Appendix B.I), 11 days after it was collected. This report
was delivered to the Waltham facility of the New England
Division on June 4, 1982.
The report contains three appendices. Sampling information
for dredged material and reference sediment is presented in
Appendix A. ERCO's quality-control program for the receipt of
samples, preparing, and testing of dredged material and
associated sediments is detailed in Appendix B. All raw
bioassay-related data are contained in Appendix C. Only
bioassay data directly relevant to the assessment are presented
in the main body of the report.
-1-
-------
DREDGING SITES
:o...
PORTLAND
PLANE COORDINATE GRID
Carpi al Engin««r» local pUoo coord*
it* grid » ihown by doutd hck,
i ,n (Ha ncinity al Partltnd Harbor.
•^ Origin it tufion 3. C. Pr«bl».
?£-4J!T» "PORTLAND" » X *7
P'^J> 33 35 " HARBOR \ , '
•1$"?^" 36 k-r ^ i 35 °y( -
\^^ 38 *° 35x-4=^t7T«^-;j,> ('^
^» 35 " SC J*/Kj5 «"» IS\i> ,>/ \
, Ws- --.- oc" -, "A^^Sv211 I1. / 4>
Ki^-'j^Sr"^"^
r^'i/' '^i^
r/ai
36
Pri» mjinld
V
C'/-
35
1. SOUTH PORTLAND
/. * *..***' * ^*/l.*
/*•*> ' •/ • •• ••• /-
'*)'
-! "1'i
'35
1 "3 •*/»••
l.C-7-
.
a. Ji
c-o-
?rcl,
LU-.CJ.
^-
'
«_-»
^
»* i.
^^•""^^_"^>^ ,-/.
o^--. jSc-*^
^^ y%^^
^"^o~ I'J^S'' " »^n '~^A
^.;^&^:-<'Y^^
4^k"4^4^
v^^ih^ '
'* \^-2&*jSSR-3L0t'
'*-**!
,
- if
\<£&r* X
Figure 1. Locations of Proposed Dredging and Disposal Sites. Sampling Stations for
Sediment are Depected in Maps. (Information Supplied By J. Baiek, U.S. Army, COE).
-------
2. OBJECTIVES
The objective of .this assessment is to evaluate the
ecological acceptability of the proposed oceanic discharge
of dredged material from the south reach of Portland Harbor to
the disposal site located approximately 6 nmi east of Cape
Elizabeth, Maine (Figure 1). If the proposed discharge
operation is judged to be ecologically acceptable according to
the bioassay- and bioaccumulation-related criteria employed in
the assessment, the disposal practice is considered to be in
partial compliance with Subpart B (Environmental Impact) of
the ocean dumping regulations (U.S. EPA, 1977).
Subpart B (Environmental Impact) of the ocean dumping
regulations consists of the following basic sections: §227.5
(Prohibited Materials); §227.6 (Constituents Prohibited as
Other than Trace Contaminants); §227.7 (Limits Established for
Specific Wastes or Waste Constituents); §227.8 (Limitations on
the Disposal Rates of Toxic Wastes); §227.9 (Limitations on
Quantities of Waste Materials); §227.10 (Hazards to Fishing,
Navigation, Shorelines or Beaches); §227.11 (Containerized
Wastes); §227.12 (Insoluble Wastes); and §227.13 (Dredged
Materials). Disposal of dredged material must comply with
restrictions and limitations imposed by §227.5, §227.6,
§227.9, §227.10, and §227.13 of the regulations (U.S. EPA,
1977).
Dredged material from the south reach of Portland Harbor
complies with §227.5 (Prohibited Materials) of the ocean
dumping regulations since it does not contain high-level
radioactive wastes; materials used for warfare; insufficiently
described materials; or persistent, inert substances that may
interfere materially with legitimate uses of the ocean.
Compliance of the material with toxicological (bioassay-based)
-3-
-------
and bioaccumulation-related criteria identified in §227.6
(Constituents Prohibited as Other than Trace Contaminants) and
§227.13 (Dredged Material) of the regulations is addressed in
this report.
-4-
-------
3. METHODS AND MATERIALS3
Proposed dredged material from the south reach of Portland
Harbor was collected (March 9, 1982) by a sampling crew
supervised by J. Bajek, NED, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
who supplied all information concerning sample collection.
Nine sampling sites (Sites A through I) were occupied in
Portland Harbor (Figure 1). At each site, samples were
collected with a gravity corer or grab sampler. The samples
were placed in polyethylene bags, which were iced immediately
1 and transported to ERCO's facility in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
f
The samples were delivered to ERCO by Mr. Robert Morton, SAI,
)
at 1400 on March 11 and were immediately placed in cold
storage (2-4'C).
Dredged material was composited into .the following
four samples: sample 1 - sites G, H, and I; sample 2 - sites
A, E, and F; sample 3 - sites C and D; and sample 4 - site B.
Material was prepared for biological testing according to
procedures described in Appendix B of the manual entitled
Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material
into Ocean Waters (U.S. EPA and U.S. Army COE, 1977). Artificial
seawater (30 ppt salinity) was employed in the bioassay
tests.
Bioassays with dredged material were conducted according
to guidelines presented in Appendix F of the EPA and COE
manual for dredged material (U.S. EPA and U.S. Army COE,
1977). Species tested in the solid phase bioassays were the
aProcedures used to sample, prepare, and test dredged
material are described in detail in Appendix B.I and B.2 of
this report.
-5-
-------
grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio), hard clam (Mercenaria
mercenaria), and sandworm (Nereis virens). Grass shrimp
were obtained from a commercial supplier in Massachusetts.
Hard clams and sandworms were acquired from commercial sup-
pliers in, respectively, Long Island, New York, and Boston,
Massachusetts. Animals were acclimated in artificial seawater
for at least 3 days prior to initiation of testing. All
species were tested in the same aquaria. Testing tempera-
ture was 204^1°C. Water exchange (artificial seawater)
was by the replacement, as compared to the flow-through,
method. Control (culture) sediment employed in the tests was
collected on March 11, 1982, from the subtidal zone off
Manchester, Massachusetts. The sediment consisted primarily
of sand. Reference (disposal-site) sediment used in the tests
was collected on March 10, 1982, from a single sampling site
located approximately 13 nmi east of Portland Head, Maine
(Figure 1). The sediment was collected with a grab sampler
operated by the sampling crew directed by J. Bajek. Depth of
water at the sampling site was approximately 58 m. The
sediment was placed in polyethylene bags, which were immedi-
ately iced and transported to ERCO's Cambridge facility. The
sediment arrived at ERCO at 1400 on March 11 and was immediately
placed in cold storage (2-4*C).
At the conclusion of the solid phase bioassays with
grass shrimp, hard clams, and sandworms, all surviving organ-
isms from each aquarium (replicate) were placed in an aquarium
containing clean, sediment-free, water and allowed to void
their digestive systems (sand worms were confined in Nitex
containers to prevent predation by grass shrimp). Organisms
were maintained in uncontaminated media for a period of
2 days. During this time, fecal material was removed from
aquaria. At the end of the 2-day period, all samples of
organisms were split into approximately equal amounts. One
-6-
-------
of these subsamples was placed in a polyethylene clean bag
and frozen for later analyses for metals. The second subsample
was put in solvent-rinsed aluminum foil and frozen for analyses
for organics. Prior to being chemically analyzed, biological
samples were thawed and exoskeletons of grass shrimp and hard
clams were removed with acid-rinsed plastic utensils (metal
analyses) or solvent-rinsed metal utensils (organic analyses).
Biological samples (tissue samples) were analyzed for two
metals - Cd and Hg - according to procedures described by
Goldberg (1976) and the U.S. EPA (1979). In the analyses for
Cd, an aliquot of wet, homogenized tissue (approximately 5 g
for hard clams and sandworms and 0.3-0.6 g for grass shrimp)
was placed in a 100-ml tall-form Pyrex beaker with 5 ml of
concentrated, Instra-analyzed (J.T. Baker Co.) nitric acid and
refluxed without boiling until the tissue was completely
digested (6-24 hr). Following digestion, the sample was
evaporated to dryness. Then, additional nitric acid (1-2 ml)
and 30% Ultrex (J.T. Baker Co.) hydrogen peroxide (1-2 ml)
were added to the beaker, and the sample was heated until
oxidative frothing subsided. At this time, the sample was
cooled, diluted to volume with deionized, distilled water,
and analyzed by graphite-furnace atomic absorption spectropho-
tometry (AAS). For the analyses for Hg, a separate aliquot of
wet, homogenized tissue (about 5 g for hard clams and sandworms
and 0.3-0.6 g for grass shrimp) was placed in a 300-ml glass
BOD bottle. Approximately 15-20 ml of concentrated, Instra-
analyzed sulfuric acid was placed in the bottle, and the
sample was heated at 55°C in a water bath until the tissue
was completely digested (2 hr). After cooling of the sample,
100 ml of deionized, distilled water and 1-2 g of Instra-
analyzed potassium permanganate were added to the bottle.
The resulting solution was analyzed by cold-vapor AAS after
addition of reducing agents (10% hydroxylamine hydrochloride
and 10% stannous sulfate).
-7-
?
-------
Tissue samples were analyzed for three types of organics -
PCBs, the DDT family, and petroleum hydrocarbons - according
to procedures described by the U.S. EPA (1971), Crump-Wiesner
et al. (1974), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (1977),
and Warner (1976). Tissue samples (5-20 g wet wt.) were
placed in 50-ml centrifuge tubes, to which were added 10-ml
aliquots of 10 N potassium hydroxide and high-purity methanol,
and 5 ug of an internal standard (androstane). After sealing
with nitrogen gas, the tubes were placed in a water bath at
80°C for 4 hr (tubes were shaken every 30 min). This saponi-
fication process, described above, digests the tissue, thereby
releasing PCBs, DDTs, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Three 20-ml
portions of high-purity hexane were used to extract the
original compounds of interest from the methanol/potassium
hydroxide digestate. The water soluble fraction was then
discarded. The-three extracts were combined, dried over a
small volume (10 g) of sodium sulfate, and concentrated to
1 ml by flash evaporation. The extracts were then fractionated
using column chromatography (1 g sodium sulfate, 6.5 g of 7.5%
deactivated alumina, and 1 g sodium sulfate) as follows. The
1-ml concentrate was charged to the top of the column and the
column was eluted with 25 ml of hexane. The hexane was concen-
trated to 2 ml by flash evaporation, and further concentrated
to 0.5 ml under a stream of purified nitrogen. The hexane
fraction was analyzed for PCBs and the DDT family by packed-
column gas chromatography and electron-capture detection,
employing a Hewlett-Packard Model 5840A instrument equipped
with a Ni63 detector. The column, a 6-ft x 2-mm I.D. glass
instrument packed with 5% SP2401 or 1.95% SP2401 and 1.5%
SP2250, was held isothermally at 188°C. The peaks in the
hexane fraction were identified and quantified by comparing
retention times and peak areas to those of standards. An
aliquot of the column-chromatographic fraction was analyzed
for petroleum hydrocarbons by glass capillary gas chromato-;
-8-
-------
graphy and flame ionization detection, employing a Hewlett-
Packard Model 5840A instrument. The column, a 0.25-mm I.D. x
30-m SE30 glass capillary fused silica column (J&W Scientific),
was temperature-programmed from 60"C to 275°C at 100/min. The
areas of the resolved and unresolved components were measured
by electronic integration and planimetry, respectively, and
compared to the areas of an internal standard (androstane) to
determine the concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons.
Results of the bioassay and bioaccumulation studies were
interpreted by statistical techniques recommended by the U.S.
EPA and U.S. Army COE (1977). When warranted, each data set
generated in the studies was evaluated by Cochran's test to
determine if variances of the data were homogeneous. If
variances were homogeneous, a parametric one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) and, if necessary, Student-Newman-Keuls'
multiple-range test was used to determine if significant
differences exist between control or reference organisms and
organisms exposed to dredged material. If variances were not
homogeneous as judged by Cochran's test, the data were trans-
formed (natural logarithm of X + 1), and the transformed data
were evaluated for homogeneity of variances by Cochran's
technique. Transformed data exhibiting homogeneous variances
were analyzed for significant differences by a parametric
one-way ANOVA and, if appropriate, Student-Newman-Keuls1 test.
In all statistical tests, the symbols "*" and Bns" are used to
denote significant and nonsignificant differences, respectively,
-9-
-------
4. RESULTS
Results of the bioassay and bioaccumulation studies
conducted during the ecological assessment of proposed dredged
material from the south reach of Portland Harbor are presented
in this section of the report.
4 .1 Bioassay Studies
Data produced by solid phase bioassays with grass
shrimp, hard clams, and sandworms are presented in Table Cl
(Appendix C). Mean survival of organisms exposed for 10 days
to dredged material was 88.0 to 98.0% (grass shrimp), 99.0 to
100.0% (hard clams), and 94.0 to 99.0% (sandworms).
i
Analysis of total (combined) survival data for the
three species exposed for 10 days to control (culture)
sediment, reference (disposal-site) sediment, and the solid
phase of dredged material is presented in Table 1. Mean
survival of control organisms was greater than 90%, thus
allowing evaluation of data from tests with reference sediment
and dredged material. Survival of organisms exposed to the
solid phase of dredged material was not significantly different
(a = 0.05) than survival of reference organisms. Thus, it is
concluded that, with regard to its toxicological effects, the
solid phase of dredged material from the south reach of
Portland Harbor is ecologically acceptable for discharge at
the proposed disposal site.3
aParagraph 37, page F17, Appendix F of the EPA and COE
manual for dredged material (U.S. EPA and U.S. Army COE, 1977)
states that a solid phase has "real potential for causing
environmentally unacceptable impacts on benthic organisms
[only if] difference in mean survival between animals in the
control and test sediments is statistically significant and
[emphasis added] greater than 10 percent."
-10-
-------
sle !•—Analysis of total (combined) survival data foe grass shrimp (Pa 1aemonetes
-jcio). hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) , and sandworms (Nereis virens) exposed for
'C days to control (culture) sedimenc, reference (disposal-site) sediment, and solid
;'-3se"of dredged material
Step 1. Survival Data (From Table Cl)
(t):
-^li- Control
~-'j-e (Cul ture)
~ri Sediment
: 60
2 59
3 59
4 58
5 57
Mean (x): 58.60
(97.7%)
Number of Survivors
Reference
( Disposal-
Site)
Sediment
55
59
58
59
58
57.80
(96.3%)
Dredged
Material -
Sites
G, H, I
59
59
56
58
60
58.40
(97.3%)
Step 2. Cochran's Test
.of
Variances of
Dredged
Material -
Sites
A, E, F
53
56
60
59
53
57.20
(95.3%)
Dredged
Material -
Sites
C, D
60
59
60
54
56
57.80
(96.3%)
Dredged
Material -
Site 8
58
56
57
60
60
58.20
(97.0%)
for Homogeneity
Survival Data
Number of Survivors
Treatment (t)
Reference (Disposal-Site)
Dredged Material - Sites G
Dredged Material - Sites A
Dredged Material - Sites C
Dredged Material - Site B
Sediment
, H, I
, E, F
, D
Mean (x)
57.80
53.40
57.20
57.80
58.20
Variance(
2.70
2.30
7.70
7.20
3.20
s2)
C(cal.)
S2(max.) 7.70
ts'
23.10
= 0.33 ns.
as compared to:
^(tab.) = 0.54 for a =• 0.05,
fc = 5, and v = 4
Step 3. Parametric One-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA)
Source of Variation
Treatment (Refer-
ence Sediment,
Dredged Material
Prom Four Sites)
Error t(
Total
of Total
df
t-l=4
r-l)=20
tr-l=24
Survival
Sum of
Squares
4.24
92.40
96.64
Data
Mean
Square F(cal.)
1.06 0.23 ns.
4.62
as comnared to: P(tab.)
2.87 for a =• 0.05,
numerator df = 4, and
denominator df = 20
-------
4.2 Bioaccumulation Studies
Concentrations of the DDT family in tissues in grass
shrimp, hard clams, and sandwormn that survived 10-day exposure
to the solid phase of dredged material were always less than
the analytical detection limit of 0.01 ug/g wet weight.
Concentrations of Cd (Table 2), Hg (Table 3), PCBs (Table 4),
and petroleum hydrocarbons (Table 5) in organisms exposed to
dredged material usually were not significantly elevated
(a = 0.05) above concentrations observed in reference organisms.
However, significant (a = 0.05) bioaccumulation did occur in
the cases of mercury in sandworms exposed to the composite of
dredged material from Sites G, H, and I and PCB's in grass
shrimp exposed to the composites of material from Sites A, E,
and F.
-12-
-------
.,--.» 5.—Petroleum hydrocarbons (Continued)
;-;ani.sin
Analysis
:.--wor~s
Step 1. Concentration of Chemicals in Tissues
Treatment
(t):
Concentration (ug/g wet wt.)-
Mean (x)
Reference
(Disposal-
Site)
Sediment
1.3
2.2
3.8
3.6
2.0
2.6
Step 2.
Dredged
Material -
Si tes
G, H, I
8.4
4.3
6.8
4.2
5.7
6.1
Cochran's Test
of Variances of
Dredged
Mater is. I
Sites
A, E, F
13.0
1.8
1.3
5.0
2.4
4.7
Dredged
Material -
Sites
C, D
4.2
4.2
3.8
14
3.8
6.0
Dredged
Material -
Site B
7.1
5.1
5.1
6.2
4.7
5.6
for Homogeneity
Chenical
Data
Data (ug/g wet wt.)
Treatment (t)
Reference (Disposal-Site)
Dredged
Dredged
Dredged
Dredged
Material
Material
Material
Material
-
-
-
"
Sites G
Sites A
Sites C
Site B
Sedinent
, H, I
, E, F
, D
Mean
2.
6.
4.
6.
5.
(x)
6
1
7
0
6
Variance( s
1.
3.
23.
20.
0.
16
25
56
04
93
2}
c(cal.)
S2(max.) 23.56
Cs"
48.99
=• 0. 48 na,
as compared to:
^(tab.) °* ".54 for a = 0.0.5,
k =» 5, and v » 4
Step 3. Parametric One-way Analysis of
Source of
Variation
Treatment
(Reference
Sediment,
Dredged
Material
From Four
Sites)
Error
Total
Variance
df
(ANOVA) of Chemical Data
Sum of
Squares
t-l=4 42.6
t(r-l)=»20 196.0
tr-1-24 233.6
Mean
Square P(cal.)
10.6 1.08 ns,
9.8
as compared to: P
2.87 for a = 0.05,
numerator df =• 4, and
denominator df = 20
-------
_.a :—petroleum hydrocarbons (Continued)
Analysis
,.,* ::ims
Step 1. Concentration of Chemicals in Tissues
--eatment
(t):
Concentration ( ug/g wet wt.)
Mean (x)
Reference
(Disposal-
Site)
Sediment
2.3
4.7
5.5
7.5
4.4
5.0
Step 2.
Dredged
Material -
Sites
G, H, I
5.9
8.1
8.8
9.7
4.2
7.3
Cochran's Test
of Variances of
Dredged
Material -
Sites
A, E, F
6.0
4.6
5.5
12.0
8.9
7.4
for Homoqeneif
Chemical Data
Dredged
Material -
Sites
C, D
6.3
11.0
3.4
14
10
8.9
f
Dredged
Material -
Site B
7.3
11.0
6.6
4.8
15
8.9
Data (ug/g wet wt.)
Treatment (t)
Reference (Disposal-Site)
Dredged
Dredged
Dredged
Dredged
Material
Material
Material
Material
-
-
-
"
Sites
Sites
Sites
Site 3
Sediment
G, H, I
A, E, F
C, D
Mean
5.
7.
7.
8.
8.
(x)
0
3
4
9
9
Variance(
2
5
9
17
16
.95
.05
.20
.16
.57
s2)
_
C(cal.)
S2(max. ) 17.16
as compared to:
c(tab.) a
a =• 0.05,
= 5, and v = 4
Step 3. Parametric One-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) of Chemical Data
Source of
Variation
Treatment
(Reference
Sediment,
Dredged
Material
From Four
Sites)
Error
Total
Sum of Mean
df Squares Square p(cal.)
t-l=4
t(r-l)=20
tr-l=»24
52.7 13.18
203.7
256.4
10.19
1.29 na.
as compared to: Fftab J
2.87 for a = 0.05,
numerator df = 4, and
denominator df = 20
-------
. $.—Analyses of petroleum hydrocarbons in tissues of grass shrimp
i''eifloneces pug io), hard clams (Mercenaria mercenar ia), and sandworms (Nereis virens)
.r^ survived 10-day exposure to reference (disposal-site) sediment and solid phase of
i.j.jcred material
-,3inism
•-j5S 5hrimp . Step 1.
(t): Reference
3e=l.;.- (Disposal-
".-3-3 .. Site)
•r) Sediment
<0.1
2 <0 . 1
3 5.0
4 <0. 1
5 2.8
Mean (x): 1.6
Step 2.
Treatment (t)
Reference (Disposal-Site)
Dredged Material - Sites G
Dredged Material - Sites A
Dredged Material - Sites C
Dredged Material - Site B
Analysis
Concentration of
Chemicals in Tissues
Concentration (ug/g wet wt.)
Dredged
Material -
Sites
G, H, I
^0.1
^0.1
<0.1
12
2.4
2.9
Dredged Dredged
Material - Material - Dredged
Sites Sites Material -
A, E, F C, D Site B
1.0 1.2 <0.1
<0.1 6.0 <0.1
<0.1 26 40
23.0 3.3 7.0
6.5 <0. 1 <0. 1
6.1 7.3 9.5
Cochran's Test for Homoqeneity
of Variances of
•
Sediment
, H, I
, E, F
, D
Chemical Data
Data (ug/g wet wt.)
Mean (x) Variance(s )
1.6 4.9
2.9 26.6
6.1 95.9
7.3 114.1
9.5 300.4
_ S2(max.) 300.4
C5, andv=»4
1
i\
Step 3. Parametric One-Hay Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) of
Source of
Variation
Treatment
(Reference
Sediment,
Dredged
Material
From Four
Sites)
Error
Total
Chemical
df
t-l=4
t(r-l)=20
tr-l=24
Data (Transformed Data)
Sum of
Squares
2.39
31.44
33.83
Mean
Square P(cal.)
0.60 0.33 ns,
1.57
as compared to: ?(tab )
2.87 for a = 0.05,
numerator df => 4, and
denominator df » 20
-------
•_ ..„ ;. .polychlorinated biphenyls (Continued)
*\
I
I
II
•-:».-. '.sm
.,-i C'.snis Step 1.
( t ) : Reference
vcl.-. - (Disposal-
' ;» • = Site)
"-'. Sediment
• •=; ? ^
m\\
-------
^i*^
"..-•a 4.—Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Continued)
--i jr. ism
Analysis
'-".'. 1 "US
Step 4. Student-Newman-Xeuls ' Multiple-Range Test
for Identifying Cause of Significant Difference
in Chemical Data
A. Ranking of Treatment Means (x)
E
(1)
Reference
Sediment -
0.02
'rom Lowest !
(2)
Dredged
Material ,
Site B -
0.03
:o Highest
(3)
Dredged
Material ,
Sites
G, H, I -
0.04
(4)
Dredged
Material ,
Sites
C, D -
0.05
(5)
Dredged
Material,
Sites
A, E, F -
0.07
Comparison
of Means
B. Comparison of Mean for Reference Sediment
with Greater Means for Dredged Material^
Difference
Between Means
(5) vs. (1) 0.07 - 0.02 = 0.05 *,
(4) vs. (1) 0.05 - 0.02 = 0.03 ns.
(3) vs. (1) 0.04 - 0.02 = 0.02 ns,
(2) vs. (1) 0.03 - 0.02 =• 0.01 ns,
as compared to LSD
(least significant
difference) = 0.0326
for a =» 0.05,
s~ =» 0.0077, and K =• 5
as compared to LSD =•
0.0305 for a = 0.05,
s£ * 0.0077, and K = 4
as compared to LSD =•
0.0276 for a = 0.01,
sj " 0.0077, and K » 3
as compared to LSD =•
0.0227 for a = 0.05,
sj » 0.0077, and K =• 2
111
m
-------
4.—Analyses of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in tissues of grass shrimp
! jg'nonetes puqio) , hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria), and sandworms (Nereis virens)
| survived 10-day exposure to reference (disposal-site) sediment and solid phase of
i^ed material
jnis-Ti Analysis
;r,s5 Shrimp
Step 1. Concentration of Chemicalsin Tissues
Concentration (ug/g wet wt.)
Mean (x)
Reference
(Disposal-
Site)
Sediment
0.02
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.02
Step 2.
Dredged
Material -
Sites
G, H, I
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.04
Cochran ' s Test
of Variances of
Dredged
Material
Sites
A. E, F
0.07
0.05
0.09
o.oa
0.05
0.07
Dredged
Material -
Sites
C, D
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.05
Dredged
Material -
Site B
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.03
for Homogeneity
Chemical
Data
Data (ug/g wet wt.)
Treatment (t)
Reference (Disposal-Site)
Dredged
Dredged
Dredged
Dredged
Material
Material
Material
Material
-
-
-
"
Sites G
Sites A
Sites C
Site B
Sediment
, H, I
, E, F
, D
Mean
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(x)
02
04
07
05
03
Variance!
0
0
0
0
0
.00027
.00037
.00032
.00042
.00033
s2)
c(cal.)
s2(max.) 0.00042
0.00171
- 0.25 ns,
as compared to:
c(tab.) = 0.54 for a - 0.05,
k •=• 5, and v «• 4
Step 3. Parametric One-way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) of Chemical Data
Source of
Variation
Treatment
(Reference
Sediment,
Dredged
Material
From Four
Sites)
Error
Total
df
t(r-l)=20
tr-l=24
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
F(cal.)
t-l=4 0.00536 0.0015 5.00 •,
0.00634
0.01270
0.0003
as compared to: P(tab )
2.37 for a = 0.05,
numerator df = 4, and
denominator df » 20
-------
,a 3_ Mercury (Continued)
Analysis
inued)
Step 4. Student-Newman-Keuls' Multiple-Range Test
for Identifying Cause of Significant Difference
in Metal Data
A. Ranking of Treatment Means (x)
From Lowest to HIahest
(1)
Reference
Sediment
0.003
B.
Comparison
of Means
(2)
Dredged
Material,
Sites
C, D -
0.006
Comoarison of
with Greater
Difference
Between Means.
(3)
Dredged
Material ,
Sites
A, E, F -
o.ooa
Mean for
Means for
(4)
Dredged
Material,
Site B -
o.ooa
(5)
Dredged
Material,
Sites
G, a, I -
0.013
Reference Sediment
Dredged Material
(5) vs. (1) 0.013 - 0.003
0.010 *, as compared to LSD
(least significant
difference) =• 0.008
for a =» 0.05,
sj = 0.002, and K => 5
(4) vs. (1) 0.008 - 0.003 =» 0.005 ns, as compared to LSD =•
0.008 for at - 0.05,
s~ = 0.002, and K =» 4
(3) vs. (1) 0.008 - 0.003 = 0.005 ns, as compared to LSD -
0.007 for a = 0.05,
s^ = 0.002, and K =• 3
(2) vs. (1) 0.006 - 0.003 = 0.003 ns, as compared to LSD =•
0.006 for a = 0.05,
sj = 0.002, and K = 2
-------
_•„ 3.—Mercury (Continued)
Analysis
Step 1. Concentration of Metal in Tissues
Teatment
U):
Concentration (ug/g vet wt.)
Mean (x)
Reference
(Disposal-
Site)
Sediment
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.004
•C0.001
0.003
Step 2.
Dredged
Material -
Sites
G, H, I
0.017
0.005
0.019
0.016
0.007
0.013
Cochran's Test
of Variances of
Dredged
Material -
Sites
A, E, F
o.ooa
0.006
0.002
0.013
0.009
0.003
Dredged
Material -
Sites
C, 0
0.004
0.009
0.005
0.007
0.005
0.006
Dredged
Material -
. Site B
0.017
0.010
0.003
0.002
0.009
0.008
for Homogeneity
Metal Data
Data {ug/g wet wt.)
Treatment ( t )
Reference (Disposal-Site)
Dredged Material - Sites G
Dredged Material - Sites A
Dredged Material - Sites C
Dredged Material - Site B
Sediment
, H, I
, E, F
, D
Mean (ic)
0.003
0.013
0.008
0.006
0.008
Variance(s )
0.0000018
0.0000402
0.0000163
0.0000040
0.0000367
C(cal. )
Cs
0.0000402
0.0000990
0.41 ns,
as compared to:
c(tab.) ° °-54 for «
k » 5, and
= 0.05,
v = 4
Step 3. Parametric One-Way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) of Metal Data
Source of
Variation
Treatment
(Reference
Sediment,
Dredged
Material
From Four
Sites)
Error
Total
<3f
t(r-l)=-20
tr-l=24
Sum of
Squares
t-l=4 0.000274
0.000396
0.000670
Mean
Square
0.000068
0.000020
p(cal.)
3.40 *,
as compared to: P(tab )
2.87 for a =• 0.05,
numerator df * 4, and
denominator df = 20
-------
. .... 3.—Mercury (Continued)
Analysis
Step 1. Concentration of Metal in Tissues
Concentration (ug/g wet wt.)
Mean (x )
Reference
(Disposal-
Site)
Sediment
0.016
0.012
0.016
0.014
0.015
0.015
Step 2.
Dredged
Material -
Sites
G, H, I
0.017
0.021
0.017
0.012
0.016
0.017
Cochran's Test
of Variances of
Dredged
Material -
Sites
A, E, P
0.019
0.010
0.012
0.020
0.013
0.015
Dredged
Material -
Sites
C, 0
0.010
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.010
0.011
Dredc=d
Material -
Sits 3
0.015
O.C10
0.020
0 . C ; 5
0.010
0.014
for Homogeneity
Metal Data
Data (ug/g wet wt.)
if,
lii
Treatment (t)
Reference (Disposal-Site)
Dredged
Dredged
Dredged
Dredged
Material
Material
Material
Material
-
-
-
—
Sites G
Sites A
Sites C
Site B
Sediment
, H, I
, E, F
, D
Mean
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(x)
015
017
015
Oil
014
Variance( s
0
0
0
0
0
.000003
.000010
.000020
.000002
.000021
)
•teal.)
S2(max.) 0.000021
Cs'
0.000056
ns,
as compared to:
c(tab.)
0.54 for a =» 0.05,
k = 5, and v •* 4
Step 3. Parametric One-way Analysis of
Variance
Source of
Variation
Treatment
(Reference
Sediment,
Dredged
Material
Prom Four
Sites)
Error
Total
(ANOVA) of
df
t-1-4
t(r-l)=-20
tr-l=>24
Metal Data
Sum of
Squares
0.000070
0.000224
0.000294
Mean
Square
o.ooooia
0.000011
F(cal.)
1.64 ns.
as compared to: F(tab )
2.87 for a =• 0.05,
numerator df =• 4, and
denominator df » 20
t •
i;!
P
h
I
li
-------
of mercury (Hg) in tissues of grass shrimp (Palaemonetes puoio),
'I,.j clinis (Mercenaria mercenaria) , and sandworms (Nereis virens) that survived
'•'"-d3v exposure to reference (disposal-site) sediment and solid phase of dredged
Analysis
;rii2 Shrimp
Step 1. Concentration of Metal in Tissues
Treatment
(t):
Concentration ( ug/g wet wt. )
Mean (x)
• Reference
(Disposal-
Site)
Sediment
0.084
0.15
0.19
0.39
0.26
0.21
Step 2.
Dredged
Material -
Sites
G, H, I
0.10
0.40
0.30
0.058
0.094
0.19
Cochran's Test
of Variances of
Dredged
Material -
Sites
A, E, F
0.34
0.13
0.23
0.19
0.093
0.20
for Homoqenei
Metal Data
Dredged
Material -
Sites
C, D
0.050
0.14
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.14
tv
Dredged
Material -
Site B
0.35
0.22
0.19
0.27
0.23
0.25
m-
Data (ug/g wet wt. )
Treatment ( t )
Reference (Disposal-Site)
Dredged Material - Sites
Oredged Material - Sites
Dredged Material - Sites
Dredged Material - Site B
Sediment
G, H, I
A, E, F
C, D
Mean (x)
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.14
0.25
Var iance(
0.014
0.023 -
0.009
0.003
0.004
s2)
c(cal.)
S2(max.) 0.023
~2 = 0.053
ts
0.43 ns.
as compared to:
c(tab.) " °-54 for a = °-05'
It = 5, and v = 4
Step 3. Parametric One-Way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) of Metal Data
Source of Variation
Treatment (Refer-
ence Sediment,
Dredged Material
From Four Sites)
Error
Total
Sum of Mean
df Squares Square P(cal.)
t-l=4
t(r-l)=20
tr-l=24
0.034 0.009 0.90 ns.
0.208
0.242
0.010
as compared to: Fftab 1
2.87 for a - 0.05,
numerator df => 4, and
denominator df •» 20
-------
• _, 2.—Cadmium (Continued)
--ran ism
Analysis
(t):
Step 1. Concentration of Metal in Tissues
Concentration (ug/g wet wt.)
Mean (x) :
Re f erence
(Disnosal-
Site)
Sediment
0.058
0.034
0.044
0.063
0.047
0.049
Dcedged
Material -
Sites
G. H, I
0.033
. 0.055
0.044
0.046
0.052
0.047
Dredged
Material -
Sites
A, E, F
0.047
0.036
0.052
0.050
0.042
0.045
Dredged
Material -
Sites
C, D
0.027
0.050
0.039
0.042
0.049
0.041
Dredged
Material -
. Site B
0.031
0.038
0.035
0.048
0.051
0.041
• - Further Analysis Mot Warranted -
(x for dredged material
less than x for reference sediment)
-------
_ _•„ i Analyses of cadmium (Cd) in tissues of grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pug io)
"-'-,'- .-'ams (Mercenaria mercena
ria), and sandworms (Nereis virens) chac
---"jv exposure ;o reference (disposal-site) sedixerft and sol id phase
-Aerial
survived
of dredged
--:ani.3m Analysis
_.. ,i3 scrimp Step 1.
(t): Reference
saal i- ( Disposal -
";i:e " Site)
- 1 Sediment
<0.10
:
-------
'* I-.
5. DISCUSSION
The test organisms employed in the ecological assessment
of proposed dredged material from the south reach of Portland
Harbor are considered (U.S. EPA and U.S. Army COE, 1977) to be
sensitive to dredged material and appropriate for testing with
the material. To be considered appropriate for testing with
dredged material, organisms, in addition to being sensitive to
the material, must be reliable test organisms (commonly used
in bioassays) and representative of broad taxonomic or trophic
(feeding) groups (L'.S. EPA, 1977). In the case of organisms
used in solid phase tests, representation is according to
feeding characteristics, i.e., a filter-feeder, deposit
feeder, and burrowing species must be evaluated (U.S. EPA,
1977). Consequently, the results of this ecological assessment
are applicable to a wide variety of sensitive benthic organisms
indigenous to the proposed disposal site.
The bioassay (toxicity-related) studies performed in thi's
assessment indicate that the proposed discharge of dredged
material from the south reach of Portland Harbor would be
ecologically acceptable according to the criteria established
in^ the ocean dumping regulations (U.S. EPA, 1977). In addition,
most of the bioaccumulation tests performed during_jth£assess-
menfc indipafrg nn pof^nMal for xpnnbiotic constituents Of the
material to accumulate in the human food chain.3 There was
l
l!
aParagraph 25, page Gil, Appendix G of the EPA and
COE manual for dredged material (U.S. EPA and U.S. Array COE,
1977) states that there is "no indication of potential bio-
accumulation from [the solid phase of] the dredged material
[if there are] no statistical differences between tissue
concentration in the reference substrate controls and the
dredged material."
•a ;
^
-25-
-------
j^jiggDLjr.~>-- - — r-,r,,-i™«wi.«««-irm™,-,«r«rTT.^«^r^l. v „ r r.P'n,, ,. , jt Alt&^
. i
!
some indication of accumulation potential for PCB's in animals
._ ____. ^
expos~ei3 ro~comp'os'ited samples of sediment from Sites A, E, and
F, and, to a lesser degree, for mercury in animals exposed to
the composite of samples G, H, and I. The likelihood of
harmful accumulation in human consumers is remote.
Mercury
ical food
has not been demonstrated to biomagnify _irL_th_e
web. PCB's do have the potential to reach high concentration
in upper levels of the ecological food cha_i_n via the mechanism
of biomagnif icat ion. However, the organisms employed in the
bioaccumulation tests are characterized by body burdens of
PCEf' s that are approximately two orders-of-magnitude Te's's than
the~~FDA action levels of 5 ug/g for fish and shellfish (U.S.
FDA, 1979^ and are likely to represent only a small percentage
of the food
in the vicinity of the disposaJ^_s_Lt.
i-1-i-zed--- by—up-pe c- tro.ph i.e.- level pr ed a tor s
:'.
-26-
-------
5
:
6. CONCLUSIONS (SUMMARY)
i
I
The proposed oceanic discharge of dredged material
from the south reach of Portland Harbor, Maine to the disposal
site located approximately 6 nmi east of Cape. Elizabeth,
Maine, is ecologically acceptable as judged by the tcxicity-
related criteria employed in this assessment. Total (combined)
survival of grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio), hard clams
(Mercenaria mercenaria), and sandworms (Nereis virens)
exposed for 10 days to the solid phase of the four samples of
dredged material and reference (disposal-site) sediment was
| not significantly different.
5
Tissues of organisms that survived exposure to the solid
phase of dredged material from, the four sampling sites usually
did not contain significantly elevated concentrations of
xenobiotic constituents (cadmium, mercury, polychlorinated
biphenyls, the dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane family, and
petroleum hydrocarbons) as compared to tissues of reference
organisms. Only 3% of the bioaccumulation tests (2 of 60
tests) performed during the assessment - 1 of 12 tests for
PCB's and 1 of 12 tests for mercury - indicate a statistical
potential for bioaccumulation.
-27-
-------
7. LITERATURE CITED
Crump-Wiesner, H.J., H.R. Feltz, and M.L. Yates. 1974.
Pesticides in water. A study of the distribution of
polychlorinated biphenyls in the aquatic environment.
Pesticides Monitoring Journal 8:157-161.
Goldberg, E.D. 1976. Strategies for marine pollution
monitoring. Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley and Sons,
New York. 310 pp.
Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry - the principles
and practice of statistics in biological research.
W.H. Freeman Co., San Francisco. 776 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Methods for
organic pesticides in water and wastewater. National
Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Ocean dumping.
Final revision of regulations and criteria. Fed. Reg.
42(7):2462-2490.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Bioassay
procedures for the ocean disposal permit program.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf
Breeze, Florida. 122 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Manual of
methods for the analysis of water and waste. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Moni-
toring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA 600-4/79/020.
-28-
-------
^gw
b
• I
i
i
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. 1977. Ecological evaluation of proposed
discharge of dredged material into ocean waters.
Implementation Manual for Section 103 of PL-92-532.
Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Second printing, April 1978.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1977. Pesticide analytical
manual, Vol. I. Methods which detect multiple residues.
FDS, Washington, D.C. §211.13f.
-a U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1979.- Unavoidable contam-
inants in food for human consumption and food packaging
materials; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's): reduction
of tolerances; confirmation of effective data and partial
study. Fed. Reg. 44(195):57389.
Warner, J.S. 1976. Determination of aliphatic and aromatic
hydrocarbons in marine organisms. Anal. Chem. 48:
578-583.
-------
All information in this appendix was provided by Mr. J.
Bajek of the New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
. *
:E
•:r
1
;!
*
t
!
-------
sm
s^^sa
!S*P
i;
I
.»i
•f
*1
I
-»
L'^' * HI j»\ wx^\ »•••
PLANE COORD4NATE G3IO
• Corpi of Enginort loeaJ pUna coord-
-- mil* (rid i* shown by dotted tick*
,n \*o vicinity of Portland Harbor.
/•s-:-:- :..... ^^ ^ Pr«bl«.
; "^w
DISPOSAL SITE
^ipSI:. / >¥ -€?\:* "-" V-" **
sjggg^^A^; ^-. *>^gj
v"fij-j*" 5"^*3t^T--"'-"^''^ •' °*
;*^^g^5^^?S;i-ri~^j-ta
Kvi
ffi&^^&^SfSfi
,» ^ » , .,
*-" - -"-'' •*'
Appendix A. Locations of Proposed Dredging and Disposal Sites. Sampling Stations for
-------
••"•"'•'•Wp*** .
PORTLAND HARBOR - SOUTH REACH
TYPE OF SAMPLE
LOCATION
Gravity Cores to 2'7" depth Apptox. halfway between white
"D" buoy and Commercial
Marine Dock
DEPTH OF WATER AT TIME OF
SAMPLING (Approx. High Ti;
8-9'
3 - Grabs (Smith-Maclntyre)
: - Cores to 4'11" depth
3 - Cores to 4'0" depth
- Cores to 3'3" depth
- Cores to 4'4"
- Grabs
- Grabs
- Cores to 3'CP depth
Approx. halfway between red
buoy and rubble wall
Mid-point along outer pier
arm (seaward), approx.
30m away
Approx. halfway out along
west side of pier, approx.
20m away
Approx. 50m north of Port.
Harbor Marine Building
Approx. 75ra from shore
(boatyard)
Halfway between red buoy
$4 and mooring dolphin
Approx. 30m east of marker
Approx. 100m north of red
marker $4
32'
32'-34'
35'
12'
8'-9'
18
14'
All harbor sediments were collected on 9 March 1982 between 10:45 am and 5:30 pm. At
station, one 1-gallon bag of material was tagged, filled, sealed and placed in cold
cage (iced in coolers) for shipment to ERCO.
Reference sediment was collected on 10 March 1982 between 3:05 pm and 4:15 pm
^e coordinates 43° 38'N, 69* 59'W at a water depth of approx. 190'.
x 13200.0
y 25965.6
z 44557.7
-------
Portland Harbor Sampling Party Crews
9 March 1982
Gene Crouch - NMFS
Mike Bartlett - FWS
Ralph Abele - FWS
Mike Conneilly - CE
Ray Francisco - CE
Dick Semonian - CE
Jim Bajek -
Don Phipps
Dan Barry
Bob Morton -
CE
Capt.
Deckhand
SAI
Vessel - Edgarton
10 March 1982
Gene Crouch
Dick Semonian
Jim Bajek
Don Phipps
Dan Barry
Bob Morton
Gary Paquette
Lance Stewart - SAI
Mark Silvia - SAI
Gary Paquette - • SAI
-------
-..v'c-**t~j*f.~ *r*-
^'•±V>iX^e*i-'r>.
•
i
IS
f
The quality-control program described in this appendix
consists of a chain-of-custody statement for sediment samples,
laboratory procedures for preparing sediment for bioassays
and conducting bioassays, and quality-control information for
bioaccumulation studies.
-------
B.I Chain of Custody Statement
for Sediment Samples
-------
APPENDIX B.I
3
••#
jj
1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION
a
'A ENERGY RESOURCES CO. INC.
I 205 ALEWIFE BROOK PARKWAY
jsl
3 CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY STATEMENT FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Sediment samples^- were delivered to ERCO's Aquatic
Toxicology Laboratory, 205 Alewife Brook Parkway, Cambridge,
Massachusetts at 1400 on March 11, 1982. Samples were delivered
by Mr. Robert Morton, SAI, and were received by Mr. T.J. Ward,
ERCO. At ERCO, the samples were maintained in a secured
laboratory until they were used for bioassay testing.
T.0. Ward, Director,
Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory
Energy Resources Co. Inc.
C.D. Rose, Project Officer
Energy Resources Co. Inc.
^Samples consisted of 12 bags of sediment,
j;
-------
3SBBE3s^5Ss^a5^3sis55a3S3^^
I \ I
.1
.3
B.2 Laboratory Procedures for Preparing
Sediment for Bioassays and
Conducting Bioassays
-------
APPENDIX 3.2
LABORATORY PROCEDURES FOR PREPARING DREDGED MATERIAL AND CONDUCTING
Date of Certifications of Performance of Procedure
I.T.olemen-
tation of Aquatic Laboratory Division
Procedure Procedure Toxicologist Director Director
1. Store control sediment
(CS), reference sediment CS 3-11-82
(RS), and 9 samples of
dredged sediment (DS) RS 3-11-32
at 2-4"C in separate
containers. Mix sedi- DS 3-11-32 " "
r.ent in each container
as thoroughly as possible.
Solid Phase Bioassays
Bioassays should be initiated by March 25, 1982 (2 weeks
after March 11, 1982, date of sediment delivery).
Do not be concerned with sophisticated photoperiod.
Maintain dissolved oxygen in aquaria at >4 ppm.
Cover aquaria to prevent salinity changes.
2. Remove CS and RS from
storage and wet sieve
through 1-mm mesh into
separate containers. 3/13/82 "_ "
Use minimum volume of
artificial sea water
[ASW] of salinity.
30 pot for sieving pur-
poses. Place nonliving
material remaining on
sieve in appropriate
containers.
3. Mix CS and RS in
respective containers 3/18/32 " "
and allow to settle
for 6 hr.
4. Decant ASW and mix 3/18/82
CS and RS as thoroughly
as possible.
5. Assign treatments
(CS, RS, 4 samples of DS)
and replicates" ( 5 r per 3/18/82
treatment) to aquaria.
6. Randomly position
aquaria in environ-
mental chamber maintained
at 20+1'C. 3/13/82
aThis document is a copy of the work sheet that was used during the evaluation.
The document differs from the work sheet in that dates appear in typed form and
certifications were added at a single time after the dates were typed.
-------
Laooracocy Procedures (Continued]
Procedure
Date of
Implemen-
tation of
Procedure
Cert if icat ions
Aquatic
Toxicologist
of Performance
Laboratory
Director
of Procedure
Division
Director
Partially fill aquaria
:h ASM.
3/18/32
3. Place 30 mm of CS
; n 5 control aquaria.
?lace 30 nun of RS in each
rsnaining aquarium. Fill
~.s~ aquarium to ~10 mm,
-hen 2nd aquarium to
--i.0 m,-n, ..... and finally
last aquarium to "^10 no.
Sapeat sequence until
aquaria are filled to
--20 mm. Repeat sequence
acain until aquaria are
filled to ~30 mm. This
procedure will help to
ensure that CS and RS in
all aquaria are homogeneous.
Store remaining CS and RS
=• 2-4*C for later use.
3/18/32
?. Replace ASW 1 hr after
CS and RS have been added
to aquaria. Do not dis-
turb sediment during
reolacement.
3/18/32
10. Select 600 hard clams
from holding tanks and
randomly distribute into
30 culture dishes.
Follow same procedure
for sandworms.
3/13/82
11. Randomly distribute
contents of culture
dishes into aquaria.
3/13/82
12. If necessary, replace
75% of ASW 24 hr after
animals are introduced
into aquaria.
13. Acclimate animals for
48 hr. During this time
period, remove dead
animals and replace with
live animals.
Not necessary
3/13-20/82
-------
55TSBS5B3
Laboratory Procedures (Continued)
Procedure
Date of
Impl emen-
tation of
Procedure
Cert i f icat ions
Aquatic
Toxicologist
of Performance
Laboratory
Director
of Procedure
Di'v is ion
Di rector
14. During acclimation
period, remove appro-
priate volumes of
9 samples of DS from
storage and wet-sieve
each sample through
1-mm mesh into separate
containers. Use minimum
volume of ASW for sieving
purposes. Place nonliv-
ing material remaining
on sieves in containers.
3/20/82
15. Mix 9 samples of DS
in respective containers
and allow to settle for
6 hr.
3/20/82
15. Decant ASW and mix
9 samples of DS as
thoroughly as possible.
3/20/82
17. Composite 9 samples
of DS into following
samples: Sample 1 - G,
H, I; Sample 2 - A, E,
F; Sample 3 - C, D;
Sample 4 - B.
3/20/82
13. Place 15 mm of appro-
priate sample of DS in
all but control and
reference aquaria.
Employ basic strategy
identified in Step 8.
3/20/82
19. Remove remaining CS
and RS from storage.
Warm to test tempera-
ture (20-f-l'C). Add
15 mm of~~CS to each
control aquarium and
15 mm of RS to each
reference aquarium.
Employ basic strategy
identified in Step 8.
3/20/82
-------
Laboratory Procedures (Continued)
Procedure
Date of
Impl emen-
t at ion of
Procedure
Certifications of Performance of Procedure
Aq u a t i c
Toxicolog ist
Laboratory
Director"
Div i s ion
Director
20. P.epiace 75% of ASW
1 hr after addition of
4 samples of DS and
final addition of CS
and RS.
3/20/82
21. Select 600 grass
shrirap from holdinc tank
and randomly distribute
into 30 culture dishes.
3/20/32
22. Randomly distribute
contents of culture
dishes into aquaria.
3/20/82
23. Perform the follow-
ing activities:
Everv dav after introduction
of grass shrimo :nto
o Record salinity,
temperature,
dissolved
oxygen, and pB
in each aquarium
( record in log
book)
• Record obvious
mortality, for-
mation of tubes
or burrows, and
unusual behavior
patterns of
animals (record
in log book)
aauar la
Day 0 3/20/92
Day 1 3/21/82
Day 2 3/22/82 '
Day 3 3/23/82
Day 4 3/24/82
Day 5 3/25/82
Day 6 3/26/82
Day 7 3/27/82
Day 8 3/28/82
Day 9 3/29/82
Day 10 3/30/82
• n
• m
• i*
• •
• n
• •
* N
* •
* •
• •
• •
-------
Laboratory Procedures (Continued)
Procedure
Date of
Impl emen-
tation of
Procedure
Cert i f ications
Aquatic
To xi co log ist
of Performance
Laboratory
Director
of Procedure
Division
Director
Every 2 davs after introduction
of crass shrimp into aquaria
• Replace 75%
of"ASW
Day 2 3/22/82
Day 4 3/24/82
Day 6 3/26/82
Day 3 3/23/32
24. At end of 10-day
testing period, sieve
sediment in each aquarium
through 0.5-mm screen.
Count live animals.
Note -sublethal responses.
Depurate surviving organ-
isms in ASW for 48 hr
and preserve for bio-
accumulation studv.
3/30/82
-------
B.3 Quality-control Information
for Bioaccumulation Studies
-------
;.
Appendix B.3.—Quality-control information pertaining to bioaccumulation studies
Type of
Quality-Control
Information (unit
of measurement)
Organism Analyzed
Chemical
Constituent
Grass Shrimp Hard Clams
(Palaemonetes pugio) (Mercenaria mercenaria)
Sandworms
(Nereis virens)
1. Pretesting data
(concentrations
of chemical con-
stituents in
organisms prior
to testing -
ug/g wet wt.)a
Cadmium (Cd)
Mercury (Hg)
Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs)
Dichloro-diphenyl-
trichloroethane
(DDT) family
Petroleum hydra-
carbons
0.11, 0.14, 0.12
0.069, 0.12, 0.12
0.01, 0.01, 0.03
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
24, 31, 21
0.13, 0.17, 0.16
0.025, 0.033, 0.027
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
3.6, 3.5, 3.0
0.027, 0.033, 0,035
0.020, 0.022, <0.001
0.03, 0.03, 0.03
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
7.9, 11, 7.0
aPretesting data represent three subsamples of 20 composited individuals of typical organisms employed in
bioaccumulation studies conducted at ERCO during February 1982. Pretesting data are not derived from stocks of
organisms used in bioaccumulation studies for the south reach of Portland Harbor.
^Precision data are derived from organisms exposed to Replicate 1 of dredged material from Site B (metals
in hard clams and sandworms), Replicate 4 of material from Site B (metals in grass shrimp), and Replicate 1 of
material from the composite of Sites A, E, and F (organics in hard clams and sandworms). Data for organics
in shrimp are pretesting data.
GStandard oyster tissue (NBS-SRM 1566) was obtained from the National Bureau of Standards. All measured
values are derived from triplicate analyses.
-------
Quality-control information (continued)
Type of
Quality-Control
Information (unit
of measurement)
Organism Analyzed
Chemical
Constituent
Grass Shrimp
(Palaemonetes pugio)
Hard Clams
(Mercenaria mercenaria)
Sandworms
(Nereis virens)
2. Precision data
(concentrations
of chemical
constituents
in triplicate
subsamples of
one set of
organisms
exposed to
dredged
material -
pg/g wet wt.)b
Cadmium (Cd)
Mercury (Hg)
Polychlor inated
biphenyls (PCBs)
Dichloro-diphenyl-
trichloroethane
(DDT) family
Petroleum hydro-
carbons
<0.10, <0.07, <0.19
0.069, 0.60, 0.13
0.01, 0.02, <0.01
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
0.16, 0.13, 0.092
0.015, 0.016, 0.013
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
6.0, 5.5, 6.4
0.028, 0.037, 0.029
0.024, 0.025, 0.003
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
25, 6.1, 7.9
-------
Quality-control information (continued)
Type of
Quality-Control
Information (unit
of measurement)
Chemical
Constituent
Organism Analyzed
Grass Shrimp
(Palaemonetes pugio)
Hard Clams
(Mercenaria mercenaria)
Sandworms
(Nereis virens)
3. Accuracy data
• Organics
(concen-
trations
of chemical
constituents
in above-
identified
triplicate
subsamplea
attributable
to reextrac-
tion - ug/g
wet wt.)
• Metals
(concentra-
tions of
metals in
standard
oyster
tissue -
ug/g dry wt.)c
Polychlor inated
biphenyls (PCBs)
Dichloro-diphenyl-
trichloroethane
(DDT) family
Petroleum hydro-
carbons
Cadmium (Cd)
Mercury (Hg)
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
(original recovery »
100%)
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
(original recovery =
100%)
(original recovery
100%)
Oyster tissue -
measured value
3.7 _+ 0.2
0.034 + 0.024
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
(original recovery =
100%)
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
(original recovery =
100%)
0.2, 0.6, 0.4
(original recovery =
94%)
Oyster tissue -
certified value
3.5 +_ 0.4
0.057 + 0.015
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
(original recovery =
100%)
<0.01, <0.01, <0.01
(original recovery =
100%)
0.4, 0.5, 0.4
(original recovery =
97%)
-------
.''jflff^jBaamgBsaflBKBgwaaggtBHr^^
"•ir* •
J .
4
Table Cl. Results of solid phase bioassays
] shrimp ( Palaemone tes
• mercenaria
.r
1
:l
": Treatment
7 (t)
'.
'} Control
J (Culture)
i Sediment
H
Reference
(Disposal-
Site)
Sediment
Dredged
Material -
Sites G, H,
Dredged
Material -
Sites A, E,
pugio) , hard
), and sandworms (Nerei
clams (
s virens
with grass
Mercenaria
)a
Number of Survivors*3' c
Repli-
cate
(r)
1
2
3
4
5
M
Mean (x) :
(%):
1
2
3
4
5
Mean ( x) :
(%):
1
2
I 3
4
5
Mean (x) :
(%):
1
2
F 3
4
5
Mean ( x) :
(%) :
Grass
Shrimp
20
19
20
18
18
19.00
(95.0) (
17
20
20
20
20 .
19.40
(97.0)
20
19
19
20
20
19.60
(98.0)
15
16
20
19
18
17.60
(88.0)
Hard
Clams
20
20
20
20
20
20.00
100.0)
20
20
20
•20
18
19.60
(98.0)
19
20
20
20
20
19.80
(99.0)
19
20
20
20
20
19.80
(99.0)
Sand-
worms
20
20
19
20
19
19.60
(98..0)
18
19
18
19
20
18.80
(94.0)
20
20
17
18
20
19.00
(95.0)
19
20
20
20
20
19.80
(99.0)
Total
60
59
59
58
57
58.
(97.
55
59
58
59
58
57.
(96.
59
59
56
58
60
58.
(97.
53
56
60
59
58
57.
(95.
60
7)
80
3)
40
3)
20
3)
-------
Table Cl. Continued
Treatment
(t)
Dredged
Material -
Site C, D
Repl i-
cate
(r)
1
2
3
4
5
Mean ( x ) :
(%) :
Number of Survivors^, c
Grass
Shrimp
20
19
20
19
18
19.20
(96.0)
Hard
Clams
20
20
20
19
20
19.80
(99.0)
Sand-
worms
20
20
20
16
18
18.80
(94.0)
Total
60
59
60
54
56
57
(96
.80
.3)
Dredged
Material -
Site B
1
2
3
4
5
Mean ( x ) :
(%):
18
19
20
20
20
19.40
(97.0)
20
20
20
20
20
20.00
(100.0)
20
17
17
20
20
18.80
(94.0)
58
56
57
60
60
58
(97
.20
.0)
aBioassays (10-day tests) were conducted at 20^18C in
38-liter aquaria. Organisms were exposed to each replicate of
a treatment in a single aquarium. Water in aquaria was
exchanged by the replacement, as compared to the flow-through,
method and was aerated. A 14-hour light and 10-hr dark
photoperiod was maintained with cool-white fluorescent bulbs.
Minimum values of dissolved oxygen and pH recorded during the
bioassays were 5.5 mg/1 and 7.5, respectively. Salinity
was maintained at 30 ppt.
bTwenty (20) individuals of each species were initially
exposed to each replicate of a treatment. Thus, a total of
60 animals was employed in each aquarium.
cln addition to monitoring survival of all species,
burrowing behavior of sandworms was noted at 2-day intervals.
No differences were observed among aquaria.
-------
APPENDIX E
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT EIS
The Draft EIS (DEIS) was issued on October 14, 1982. The public was
encouraged to submit written comments. This appendix contains copies of
written comments received by EPA on the DEIS. There was a great variety of
comments received, thus EPA presents several levels of response:
o Comments correcting facts presented in the EIS, or providing additional
information, were incorporated into the text and the changes were
noted.
o Specific comments which were not appropriately treated as text changes
where numbered in the margins of the letters, and responses prepared
for each numbered item.
The EPA sincerely thanks all those who commented on the DEIS, especially
those who submitted detailed criticisms that reflected a thorough analysis of
the EIS.
-------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2O55O
October 18, 1982
OF-ICE OF THE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
FOR ASTRONOMICAL.
ATMCSFHEPiC. EARTH
AND OCEAN SCIENCES
Environmental Protection Agnecy
Office of Water (Acct. =072)
Criteria and Standards Division
Washington, DC 20480
Dear Sir:
1-1 The National Science Foundation has no comments on the DEIS for
the Portland, Maine Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation.
Sincerely,
Barbara E. Onestak
Acting Chairman
Committee on Environmental Matters
-------
WRSC-D
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WATER RESOURCES SUPPORT CENTER. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
KINGMAN BUILDING
FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060
°.EP'-Y TO
ATTENTION OF-.
2. , i , -. :
4 Nuv
Mr. Frank G. Csulak
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
2-1
Dear Mr. Csulak:
Inclosed are the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Portland, Maine Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation dated October, 1932. Our technical review
comments on the Preliminary DEIS were provided your office by Colonel
Maximilian Imhoff's letter of March 30, 1982.
As discussed in the DEIS, the Corps concluded in its final EIS for maintenance
dredging for the Portland Harbor dated June 1979, that the existing site is the
most environmentally and economically feasible ocean disposal site for this
Federal project. In addition, the site has been used, with EPA approval, and
under authority of 40 CFR 228.4(e) for the disposal of other dredged materials
from Portland Harbor and vicinity. Therefore, we ask that, for consistency and
to reflect existing as well as projected future use of the site, that the
proposed action be clearly stated throughout the document as final designation
for the disposal of those materials dredged from Portland Harbor and vicinity
that are in compliance with EPA criteria and requirements and Corps
regulations.
Sincerely,
1 Incl
As stated
:i "V. R. MURDEN, P. E.
Chief, Dredging Division
-------
SUBJECT: Corps Comments on the Draft EIS for the Portland, Maine Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation
General
2-2 The present assessment appears to adequately describe Portland Harbor and the
existing dumpsite area with the exception that no mention is made of recent
Corps testing performed on Portland Harbor sediments in areas outside the
Federal Channel. A copy of these data are attached for EPA's consideration ar.d
use in final EIS preparation. These data are the result of a testing program
to characterize sediments in areas east of the Portland Bridge where private
interests may be expected to maintenance dredge with disposal at the existing
site. This testing has substantially increased our data base for private
berthing and channel areas in the harbor. Additionally, it provides useful
information for assessing the potential for acute and chronic toxocological
effects of the harbor sediments if dumped at the existing site. Our analysis
of this data is that no significantly adverse impacts are expected to occur.
Specific
2-3 Pages V para. 2 and XIII - The proposed action should be revised to state that
the site is required for ocean disposal of materials dredged from Portland
harbor and vacinity or Portland Harbor area as stated on page IX, para 2.
2-4 Page 1-2; last para. - Discussion on site designation is vague and may be
misconstrued as for maintenance dredged material only. The statement should be
revised as previously agreed between the Corps and EPA to read as follows: The
Portland, Maine site would be designated for the disposal of dredged material.
The site may be used for the disposal of dredged material only after evaluation
of each Federal project or permit application has established that the disposal
is within site capacity and in compliance with the criteria and requirements of
EPA and the CE regulations.
2-5 Page 2-9; 1st para. - The last sentence should be changed to indicate that the
Federal Channel maintenance dredging project occurred during 1979-1981 and that
various private dredging projects in the area have been occurring from that
time and is still in progress. The presently active private dredging is
expected to result in an additional 800,000 c.y. deposited at the existing
site.
2-6 Page 2-10;1st para. - It should be explained which "favorable disposal areas"
Pequegnat et al identified and their relationship to the area being considered
for designation.
2-7 Page 2-1|; 3rd para. - There is an apparent discrepancy in the distance from the
alternative site to Portland Harbor. This section of the report states the
distance as 55 nmi while other sections in the assessment indicate that it may
be approximately half that distance.
2-8 Page 2-14; 1st para. - It should be explicit that future dredging/ocean
disposal projects may involve sediments outside the Federal Channel limits
(i.e. Portland Harbor and Vicinity).
-------
2-9 3rd para. - It should be noted that the existing site will continue to be
monitored under NED'3 DAMOS program.
2-10 Page 2-25; last para. - The sentence should be changed to indicate that
although a major portion of material dredged from the Portland Harbor area is
fine sand, silt and clay in a low-energy environment and is generally not
excluded from further testing under the specified exclusion criteria, on a case
by case basis, material from the area could qualify for an exclusion depending
on particular circumstances (e.g. glacial clays and tills from deep improvement
projects).
2-11 Pages ^-U; U-5 and *J-9 - These sections should include the most recent testing
information (attached).
2-12 Page *l-15; ^th para. - The recent testing in Portland Harbor includes
chlorinated hydrocarbon analyses.
2-1? Page U-16; para's 1 and 2 - The inclosed bioassay/bioaccumulation teat
information and Mussel Watch Study data should be utilized here to aid in
predicting any body burden uptake potential from dredged material disposed at
the existing site.
-------
KEPI »' SEKER IO
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Project Review
15 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 021W
n.r
3-1
3-2
Mr. Frank G. Csulak
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Csulak :
He have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the
Portland, Maine, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation and offer
the following comment.
We have no objection to the final designation of the proposed site f:r the
ocean disposal of dredged material that is in compliance with the criteria and
requirements established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) in accordance with the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act. However, we continue to experience problems
with the nature of some of the material that has been disposed of at this sHe.
We have not been in agreement with EPA and CE in their interpretation of the
ocean dumping criteria. Since this DEIS is predicated upon compliance with
ocean dumping criteria, we feel that the alternative section is inadequate
because it does not cover a worst case scenario. There may be times when
dredged material does not comply with the ocean dumping criteria. This DEIS
should be expanded to analytically investigate alternatives to ocean disposal
of dredged material that fails to comply with the ocean dumping criteria. The
alternative analysis should include a thorough discussion of land based and
shallow water containment of contaminated material.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this DEIS.
Sincerely,
William P. Patterson
Regional Environmental Officer
-------
--. NAT1ON_ALWILDLIFE FEDERATION
.'"- -•-'• 1412 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C 20036 202—797-6800
November 29, 1982
Frank G. Csulak
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Portland, Maine Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation
Dear Mr. Csulak:
4-1 Following are the comments of the National Wildlife Federation
on the referenced Draft EIS:
1. Consideration of alternative sites
4-2 As we have pointed out many times in the past,* the analyses
contained in the draft EIS are deficient with respect to the
consideration of alternative disposal sites. The draft EIS states
that "the potential adverse effects of dredged sediment on
indigenous organisms and resources are presently unknown" at the
Wilkinson Basin (deepwater) site. DEIS at xiii. In addition, with
respect to water quality and ecology, "baseline surveys have not
been conducted at the Alternative Site" to compare with data
accumulated at the existing interim site. DEIS at 2-18. How can
the effects of dredged material disposal at different alternative
disposal sites be compared when no data has been collected at one
of the alternative sites?
4-3 There has been no attempt to select a disposal site alternative
at or beyond the continental shelf break. The ocean dumping
regulations make it clear that EPA should "wherever feasible,
designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the continental
shelf and other such sites that have been historically used."
40 C.F.R. f 228.5, emphasis added. The draft EIS has tried to
brush this off by noting, among other things, that "great water
depth (>200m) would result in the deposition of dredged materials
over a larger area than projected for the Existing Site." DEIS
*(See: National Wildlife Federation comments on: Hawaii ODMDS,
January 15, 1980; San Francisco Channel Bar ODMDS, January 8, 1981;
New York ODMDS, April 5, 1982; Sabine-Neches ODMDS, October 4,
1982; and Savannah, Charleston, and Wilmington ODMDSs, November
22, 1982.)
~ • •• \V>.; V_ > i£E7!\'C MARCH IS-.:!' :••?? -'..••.•••' H.-d Aibum^'tr.^. >(.-.•- MOV.,-
700% reclaimed paper
-------
at xiii. Why is this so bad? Are decision makers to infer that
the dredged materials are environmentally degrading and therefore
deposition at a shelf-break site would have a greater environmental
impact?
2. Feasibility of marsh construction
4-4 In 1979 the Corps of Engineers stated that the construction
of marshes "would be an ideal use" for dredged materials from
the Portland Harbor. DEIS at 2-6. In response to comments from
the National Coalition for Marine Conservation, the Corps of
Engineers explained that: "no marsh project has been constructed
in the New England area, therefore, the feasibility of marsh
construction in this area has not been evaluated." Feasibility
assessment should not and cannot appropriately be deferred to a
future site-specific proposal. The purpose' of thi5 EI3 is to assess
the suitability of and need for the proposed ocean dumpsite. The
need, for an ocean site clearly depends, at least in part, on the
availability and sufficiency of suitable land-based alternatives.
3. Toxicity of dredged materials
4-5 We are concerned that the toxicity of dredged material from
the Portland Harbor has been inadequately considered. Interstate
Electronics Corporation's (IEC) field survey has found that
"sediments from the center of the Existing Site contained levels
of mercury, cadmium, and lead 3 to 12 times higher than sediments
from control station 7, just outside the site." DEIS at A-ll.
IEC attributes these differences to "contaminants present in
dredged material dumped at the ODMDS." DEIS at A-ll.
4-6 TEC has also found that chlorohydrocarbon concentrations in
Existing Site sediments exceed control concentrations. DEIS at
A-14. Moreover, sediments at the Existing Site "contained high
levels (>300ppm) of both saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons."
DEIS at A-14. IEC has concluded that these are most probably a
result of spilled No. 2 fuel oil from the Portland Harbor. No
bioassay or bioaccumulation tests were conducted on these sediments;
however, tissue samples from one lobster and one crab showed low
levels of metals. DEIS at A-16. More comprehensive tests must
be conducted and the results incorporated into the final EIS to
permit meaningful evaluation of the proposed site designation action.
4-7 The existing interim disposal site may be inappropriate
because of the toxicity of the disposed material and because of
its proximity to important fishing grounds. Although the existing
interim site is described as being a low-energy environment, the
draft EIS warns that "the possibility of contaminating finfish
and shellfish exists." DEIS at 4-5. Moreover, "potential adverse
effects of dredged sediments on the biota include . . . changes
in physical and chemical characteristics of sediments and water,
and introduction of pollutants to surrounding sediments." DEIS
at 4-2. These statements are disconcerting since the "Edge-of-the-
-------
Bottom," the primary dragging-ground for Portland-based fishermen,
is 1.5 nmi from the existing interim site. DEIS at 3-30. Also,
local currents are variable, but predominantly northeast in the
summer and northwest or southwest in the winter. DEIS at 3-6.
This would appear to position the "Ordnance Tow" and the gill nets
depicted in figure 3-7 directly dcwncurrent from the existing
interim site. DEIS at 3-31.
4-8 We recommend that appropriate bioassay and bioaccumulation
tests be conducted on materials dredged from the Portland Harbor
to determine their toxicity. Onshore containment of toxic materials
should be given serious consideration. The selection of any
offshore disposal site should be made by considering proximity
to nearby fishing grounds and trends of currents that pass over
the site (not solelv on the basis of its previous use from 1943
to 1946) .
We appreciate the opportunity to communicate these comments
and trust that the final EIS will adequately address the need for
testing dredged materials from Portland Harbor and selecting a
safe, environmentally acceptable dredged material disposal site.
Porter Hoaglai
Conservation Intern
Pollution and Toxic Substances Divisior
Kenneth S. Kamlet
Director
Pollution and Toxic Substances Divisioi
cc: Col. Carl B. Sciple, New England Division COE
Lester Sutton, EPA Region I
Steve Schatzow, EPA Headquarters
Christopher M. Weld, National Coalition for Marine Conservation
-------
,^nr-.'^
• -- .< s.
/ '.V % .
f V-£7-7 '" I UiSJT^D 37AT5S .D£P
i -"^--i ;j | iMationai Ocaanic Dnd ;
>0i '"-•^' j? I Wasnnccor!. 0 C. 2C?.2r.
".•resot" „,...,,__V,- ,,-.,,-, --•
November 30, 1982
Mr. Frank G. Csulak
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-535)
Environmental Protection Aqency
401 M St., S.W. , Room 2824
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Csulak:
5_1 This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement
entitled "Portland, Maine, Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation."
The enclosed comments from the National Oceanic and Atmosoheric
Administration are forwarded for your consideration.
Thank you for givino us an ooportunity to orovide comments. We
would appreciate receiving four copies of the final environmental impact
statement.
Sincerely,
Enclosure - Letter from:
..
-------
UNJTED STATES DEPAHTMEiMT OF
rUational Oceanic and Atmospheric
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Services Division
Habitat Protection Branch
7 Pleasant Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
November 30, 1982
Mr. Frank G. Csulak
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Csulak:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
the Portland, Maine, Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation and have the
following comments:
General Comments
5-2 We concur with the final designation of the existing site for the
ocean disposal of dredged material. The site has been used since 1946. We
believe that it generally meets the site selection criteria listed on page
xvi of the Summary Sheet, and that it is the preferred site in comparison
with the various available alternatives. However, we are concerned about
the rationale used to evaluate the various alternatives to ocean disposal
and to select this site over other possible sites.
The DEIS seems to take the position that ocean disposal of dredged
material is preferable to other alternatives. Before a position is taken
on preferable alternatives for disposal of dredged material, each project
should be evaluated on its own merits, and all feasible alternatives
to ocean disposal (upland disposal, wetland creation, etc.) should be fully
investigated and evaluated.
5_3 Further, the DEIS appears to emphasize conditions and contaminant
levels of dredge spoils from Portland Harbor, rather than potential
effects at the designated site as a result of disposing of dredge spoils.
5-4 The information presented in the document to justify the designation
of the existing site is based primarily on site specific data developed for
the Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) program and on the bioassay/
bioaccumulation test conducted for the Portland Harbor maintenance dredging
project of 1979. Since that time the National Marine Fisheries Service has
raised concerns relative to the conclusiveness of this information. (See
attached letter of September 29, 1981, to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works) from the Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Admin istrat ion.
-------
- 2 -
We believe that the data from DAMOS and other studies conducted for
the Federal navigational project dredging were too limited, because they
provide little indication of how toxic the sediments are, to what extent
the pollutants will be transported to other areas, and to what degree they
will be taken up and accumulated by marine organisms. The final EI5
should place emphasis on disposal site characterisitics (hydrological,
chemical, biological) and how those characteristics affect the disposal of
dredged material and its subsequent fate in the marine environment.
Specific Comments
Chapter 2 - ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION LAND-BASED
DISPOSAL
->~^ Page 2-6, paragraph 2. It is stated that the Corps of Engineers "...
does not consider land disposal of Portland Harbor channel dredged material
to be a viable alternative at this time (CE, 1979); therefore, further
evaluation will not be a part of EPA's site designation process."
We do not believe that a project conducted in 1979 should be used
as the basis for excluding from consideration in all future projects
the various available alternatives to ocean disposal. Those alternatives
should be fully considered before final decisions are made to dispose of
dredged materials in the ocean. Alternatives include, but are not limited
to, habitat creation, fill for upland construction projects, beach nourishment,
and cover for sanitary landfill areas; they should be fully evaluated in
the final EIS.
DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITES
(6) DISPERSAL, HORIZONTAL TRANSPORT, AND VERTICAL MIXING CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE AREA INCLUDING PREVAILING CURRENT DIRECTION AND VELOCITY, IF ANY
5-6 Page 2-15, second paragraph. It is stated that "Previous studies have
demonstrated the relative immobility of dredged sediments dumped at the
Existing Site (DAMOS), suggesting that a major portion of dredged sediment
dumped at the site will remain within site boundaries...." This statement
should be substantiated by appropriate data and documentation. We also
recommend that monitoring studies be conducted to determine the short-terra
and long-term chemical, biological, and hydrological characteristics of the
area, to confirm the validity of the conclusion regarding the relative
immobility of the sediments in this area.
(7) EXISTENCE AND EFFECTS OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS DISCHARGES AND DUMPING
IN THE AREA (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS)
-------
- 3 -
5-7 Page 2-16, third paragraph, last sentence. It is stated that "Trace
metal concentrations in tissues of crustaceans and other benthic organisms
collected at the Existing Site were below FDA Action Levels (DAMOS)."
Although this may be true, reference should be made to trace metal concen-
trations in tissues of marine organisms and the effects on those organisms
themselves (e.g., inhibition of reproductive cycles, susceptibility to
diseases etc.), as well as on the people who may eat them.
RECOMMENDED USE OF THE SITE
GUIDELINES FOR THE MONITORING PLAN
PROGRESSIVE, NONSEASONAL, CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY OR SEDIMENT
COMPOSITION AT THE DISPOSAL SITE, ATTRIBUTABLE TO DREDGED MATERIAL
Page 2-26, first paragraph.
5-8 It is stated that "Measurable changes in water quality due to dredged
material disposal are unlikely to occur or be detectable because of:
Limited release of contaminants...." However, a recent study supports the
contention that sediment concentration alone does not reflect bioavailabil ity
of contaminants to marine organisms. ^ The final EIS should discuss this
possibility. (Same comment applies to Chapter 4, pages 4-9, and 4-13.)
5-9 In conclusion, although we agree that the existing disposal site
seems to be the best choice, we believe that the data contained in the DEIS
are too limited to allow a thorough evaluation of the biological, chemical
and hydrological conditions at the dumpsite. The limited amount of research
and monitoring done in conjunction with the DAMOS program and the information
generated with respect to dredging of the Federal navigational channel in
1979 are not, in our opinion, adequate to support a conclusion that there
will be no long-term effects from continued use of the existing site.
Therefore, we urge that a more thorough monitoring program be designed and
conducted to insure that no undesirable environmental changes occur as a
result of dredged material disposal at the site.
Sincerely,
Ruth Rehfus
Branch Chief
2 "Accumulation of PCBs, mercury and cadium by Nereis Virens,
Mercenaria mercenaria and Palaemonetes Pubio from contaminated harbor
sediments," by N.I. Rubinstein, E. Lores, and N.R. Gregory. EPA/ERL
Gulf Breeze prepublication, Contribution No. 452.
-------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
1-1 EPA appreciates the National Science Foundation's Review of the Portland, Maine
Draft miS.
2-1 EPA thanks the Corps of Engineers for their review of the Portland, Maine Draft
K1S.
2-2 EPA appreciates the Corps of Engineers for providing the recent bioaccumulation/
bioassay reports. A summary of this information has been incorporated into the
final EIS.
2-3 The suggested revision has been made in the Final EIS.
2-4 EPA does not agree that the designation statement in the DEIS is vague and could be
miscon strued as only for for maintenance dredging material. However, the CE
correctly points out that it is not the statement previously agreed upon. The
statement lias been changed in the KE1S.
2-5 The updated information has been included in the FEIS.
2-6 The "Favorable Disposal Areas" that Pcqnegnat ec al., identified is the entire
continental shelf-slope Region beyond the 300-M isobath. The four most important
fishery species from their dollar value are the American Lobster, Caribbean Shrimp,
Soft-Shell Clam, and Ocean Perch. The major amounts of these species are taken at
or above the 300-M isobath. As elsewhere, the henthic biomass decreases rapidly
near and beyond the shelf-break.
-------
For ciarification, a parenthetic statement relating to the 300-M isobatli has been
included in the FEIS.
2-7 The distances have been corrected in the FEIS.
2-8 The statement only refers to present dredging projects. However, for clarification
and consistency with the proposed site designation the statement has been revised
in the FEIS.
2-9 the continued monitoring under NES's DAMOS program has been noted in the FEIS.
2-10 The suggested clarification has been made in the FEIS.
2-11 The additional recent data has been added to the FEIS.
2-12 See response 2-11.
2-13 See response 2-11.
3-1 EPA thanks the U.S. Department of the Interior for their comments on the FEIS.
3-2 The Department of the Interior is correct in saying that there may be times when
dredged material docs not satisfy El'A's criteria and regulations. At that time the
availability of other feasible alternatives must be assessed. As is stated on page
2-5, the need for dumping in the ocean must be demonstrated wil.li each application.
Also, with each project there is a review to ensure that the dredged material is in
compliance with the regulations (page 1-9).
-------
4-1 EPA apprec Laces Llie Nalional Wildlife Federation's review oL: die Draft EIS.
4-2 *See EPA's responses to those comments in the corresponding Final EIS's.
As correctly stated in the DEIS and in your comment, no base Line surveys have been
made of the alternative site. The lack of baseline surveys plus the sparity of
historical data and information on the alternative site makes it evaluation
difficult. The evaluations leading to the DEIS indicated the existing historically
used site is environmentally acceptable. The alternative site may also be
environmentalLy acceptable site wich known characteristics to a possibably
environmentally acceptable site with many unknowns would be wise.
4-3 EPA disagrees with the comment. While the ocean dumping regulations are correctly
quoted in the comment, the underlining trends to place undue emphasis on beyond the
Continental Shelf. Both "beyond the Continental Shelf" and "Historically Used"
sites were considered. Paragraph two, page xiii presents four problems with sites
on the Continental Shelf, not just one. The reason for rejecting an alternative
site off the continental shelf is stated on page 2-7. " An alternative site off
the continental shelf was rejected because the cost of transporting the material
would be excessive and no significant environmental benefits would be derived."
4-4 The evaluations leading to the DEIS addressed the selection of an environmentally
acceptable Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). The CE has expressed a
need for an ODMDS in the area (page 1-5). As stated on page 1 -6, the EIS only
addresses those issues germane to the selection, evaluation, and final designation
of an environmentaLly acceptabLe ODMDS. Ln planning disposals from future Federal
-------
projects and permitted dredging, both the ODMDS and non-ocean alternatives will be
considered. The LAND-BASED DISPOSAL section (page 2-5) was included in the DEIS as
background information on previous evaluations. The CE's full responses to the
referenced comment is included in Appendix C.
4-5 As stated in the comment, the field survey found "sediments from the center of the
Existing Site contained levels of mercury, cadium, and lead 3 to 12 times higher
than sediments from control station 7, just outside the site." This does not
indicate the levels found were unacceptable. It does indicate the levels were
higher inside the site than outside the site, with these levels" probably"
resulting from contaminants in the dredged materials dumped at the site. It should
be noted the reported results for bulk analysis or the sediments and are relatively
low (micrograms per gram)-
4-6 Much of response 4-5 applies to chlorinate hydrocarbons which also were found to be
higher within the site than at the control station. Again, bulk analysis was used
and the levels are relatively low (nangrams per gram).
4-7 The statements quoted in the comment are from a general resume in the DEIS of
possible effects of dredged material disposal in the ocean. The degree of any of
the possible effects varies with the individual site. The evaluations leading to
the DEIS indicated the fisheries in the aren had not been adversely affected by
past disposals of dredged materials at the existing site. However, because of the
general possibility of movements of the sediments Ln the site in the direction of
the fisheries, it was recommended CHC't: and metals be measured in the monitoring
program (page 2-25).
-------
4-8 Bioassay and bioaccumulations tests are being performed. As an example, a recently
received "Report of Bioassay and Bioaccumuiation Testing - South Reach Portland -
Harbor, Maine" is being included in the; Final EIS as Appendix D. For remainder of
comment, see response 4-4.
5-1 EPA appreciates the Department of Commerce's review of the DEIS.
5-2 EPA acknowledges the National Marine Fisheries Service's concurrence with tlie
proposed action. The DEIS does not take the position that ocean disposal is
preferable to other alternatives. It presents the information and evaluations
relating to the selection of an envIronmentaJly acceptable ocean disposal site.
See response 4-4.
5-3 EPA does not agree with the comment. While information on the conditions and
contaminate levels of the dredged spoil.s, other aspects also are presented in
chapters 2, 3 and 4.
5-4 The information presented in the DEIS was based on not only the DAMOS reports but
also on a number of other reports (see references). Additional, information on
bioassays/bioaccumulation is being included in the Final EIS (sec response 4-4).
The letter to the Assistant Secretary of the Army is self-explanatory.
5-5 It is apparent that the statement on page 2-6 was misleading. It has been changed
in the Final EIS to reflect the relationship between the site selection and use of
the site. See as lo response 4-4.
-------
5-6 The DAMOS project indical.es time alter disposal, dredged imiterial sediments rainain
relatively immobile and ramain at the sice. The area's topography is extremely
rugged and consists of bedrock outcrops. The unconsolidated sediments in the basin
indicates a low-energy environment with accumulation of fine materials. The rugged
topography of the area inhibits the movement of dredged material sediments.
5-7 The possible effects stated in the comment are under continuing study (see new
Appendix 0).
5-8 It is agreed that sediment concentration (bulk analysis) does not reflect
bioavailabiiity of contaminants to marine organisms. However, for the three
reasons stated on page 2-26, it is not believed monitoring of the water will be
use full in evaJuating long-term changes. The Existing Site quite small in respect
to the overall area and its water masses. It is believed that monitoring the
sediments, possibably including elutraice tests, and the movement of the sediments
will be more useful! in predicting long-term effects.
5-9 EPA believes the data presented In the D!£1S adequately supports the proposed
actions. The suggestion for the monitoring program are appreciated.
------- |